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: Director & Co-Director:
Pedro Prieto Martín Luis de Marcos Ortega
Computer Science Dept, UAH 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

Outline
1. Introduction
2. Review & Synthesis of literatures
3. Methodology & Research Itinerary
4. Findings & Discussion
5. Conclusions

Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
1

Introduction
Context
(Electronic) Participation or “(e)Participation”:
“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)

“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.”

2

Introduction Democratic
Context Institutions
of Citizens
(e)Participation

Technology

3

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)

Problem Statement (Concrete)
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.
b. Its design, construction and operation thus involve a series of exceptional
challenges and difficulties which, in turn, demand specific and
innovative approaches.
4

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.

What
for? Theories Developed
Why? EU?
countries
What?
Who? Practice
+
How?
Where? Context Impoverished LA?
When? countries

5

Outline
1. Introduction
5. Conclusions

6

Review of literatures
Disciplines Participation Informatics
involved
Development
Studies Web
Political
Issues:

(e)Participation
Science Community Science
Informatics
…
• Silos & Public CSCW
Interdisciplinary Policy
…
failures Social
Movements

• Focus:

Participatory
Design
• Power: HCI
…
Software
Development
Models
?
Software
Engineering

7

Academia
Disciplines
involved

Issues:
Practitioners

• Silos &
Interdisciplinary
failures

• Focus:

• Power: • Trans-disciplinary Context
failures

8

Tübingen
Researcher Profile
Sololá (GT) Alcalá
/ Madrid Barcelona
Education:

93-98 Universidad Complutense
MSc. Computer Science

96-00: Universidad de Alcalá
Bach. Business Admin. (Hons)
Fortaleza (BR)
00-02: Univ. Autónoma de Madrid
~ 1st Degree Bach. Philosophy

02-04: Univ. Oberta de Catalunya
Master Sociology of Information Society Work experience:
00-06: Hewlett-Packard (DE)
Technical Lead – Develop. team
02-03: Universität Tübingen (DE)

05: Universidade Estadual do Ceará (BR)
06-12: Asoc. Ciudades Kyosei
07: Deutscher Entwicklungdienst (DE)
05: Prefeitura Fortaleza (BR)
11: Uniwersytet Jagielloński (PL)
09-10: Mun. Sololá (GT)
08-10: NGO Lagun Artean
9

1. Participation
a. Models, concepts, theories

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

1. Participation
a. Models, concepts, theories
 Huge variety, with distinct value levels…
(Karsten 2011, Cornwall 2008, Brodie et al. 2009) Tetralemma

 …mostly speculative, descriptive, non-falsifiable
Flowgram
b. Methods and Tools
 A lot of variety and confusion too,
hardly manageable…
(Rowe & Frewer 2005, participedia.net)
 …including valuable insights Sociogram
(eg: Ganuza et al. 2010, CIMAS 2009)

c. Cases, Good practices and Evaluation
 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)
11

2. Software Design and Engineering
a. Development models, techniques, tools:
(Boehm 1986, Dennis et al. 2005)

 Objectives
 Prototypes
 Validation
 Iterative process

12

2. Software Design and Engineering
b. Empirical methods for software engineering research:
(Myers & Avison 2002; Easterbrook et al. 2007; Cruz Neto 2008)
• Controlled experiments
• Survey research
• Case studies
• Ethnographies (e)Participation

• Action research
• Grounded Theory

c. People-Centered Design:
(Sanders et al. 2010)

13

3. Informatics
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

14

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)
15

Outline
1. Introduction
5. Conclusions

16

Methodology & Research Itinerary
Starting Point
“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)

Determining requistes for eDemocracy Systems
(Carracedo Gallardo 2004)

17

Transdisciplinary co-design of civic software [Feedback cycles]
Previous Preliminary αlphas cycle
Knowledge Objective
Articulated objectives,
collaborators
visions and intuitions
Theoretic internal cycle
Analysis cycle
Sociopolitical Participatory
- Refined research Design
objectives Collaborative
- Research Evaluation
Socio-technical
questions
research
Minimum viable product
Technical
research αlpha
Construction Pilot Projects

βeta
Doctoral Thesis

Permanent βeta

Sustaining, scaling & improvement
18

Explorative research methods for systems’ design
Grounded Theory
• Case studies

(e)Participation
• Ethnographies
• Action research
• Grounded Theory

(Strauss y Corbin 1998; Urquhart 2010, 2012)

(Davison et al 2004)
19

Research Itinerary
Timeline BR
1 2 3

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
1
Civic Participation and ICTs at the municipal level: Consensus
1 System case in Catalonia [es]
Virtual Environments for citizen participation:
2 principal bases for design
3 Putting eParticipation research at the service of Civil Society
3

1 2 3
Participation X
BR
(e)Participation X X X

System Design X

Critical Appr. X

20

Research Itinerary
Timeline BR GT
1 2 3 4 5 6

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
4 5 6

4 The withered democracy [es]

5 Citizen Participation of the 20 th Century Citizen [es]

6 The odyssey of Participatory Budgeting in Brazil [es]
GT

1 2 3 4 5 6
Participation X X X X

(e)Participation X X X

System Design X

Critical Appr. X X X X

21

Research Itinerary
Timeline BR GT ES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

7
7 The e-(R)evolution will not be funded 8

8 Citizen Participation of the 21 st Century

9 Collaborative construction of Civic Software
Systems [es]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
X ES
Participation X X X X

(e)Participation X X X X X X

System Design X X

Critical Appr. X X X X X X X

22

Outline
1. Introduction
5. Conclusions

23

Findings & Discussion
1. On Traditional Participation
a. Critical attitude toward the research subject…

Ciudadanía Ciudadanía
Ciudadanos Ciudadanos
Poder empresarial Poder empresarial

Corporaciones Corporaciones
Soc. civil organizada Soc. civil organizada
Actores políticos Actores políticos

Políticos Políticos
Medios de Medios de
comunicación masiva comunicación masiva
Partidos políticos Partidos políticos
Administración Administración
Poderes estatales pública Poderes estatales
pública
Ejecutivo Fuerzas de Ejecutivo Fuerzas de
seguridad seguridad
Judicatura Judicatura

Legislativo Legislativo

Actores internacionales Actores internacionales
Grupos disidentes Grupos disidentes
EU, OMC, BM, FMI EU, OMC, BM, FMI
Crimen organizado Crimen organizado
Otros estados Otros estados
Grupos de resistencia armada Grupos de resistencia armada
Mercados financieros Mercados financieros

Ideal of influence in Reality of influence in
liberal democracies liberal democracies

24

a. …situated within the “big context”…

Institutional view of a social system
25

a. …that dares to speak clear and honestly
Vicious Cycle of Participation
Intrinsic Problems
Incompatibilities  Complex
- Political  Expensive Participation =
- Legal  Non-representative
- Cultural  Non-inclusive
 Less informed
1/5 · Deliberation +
- Socioeconomic
 Conflict prone
- Organizational  Non-deliberative 1/4 · Manipulation +
 Difficult to scale
 ...
Rest · Politics as usual
(ie: a continuous struggle for
power and (un)accountability)
Extrinsic Problems
 Arbitrary
Motivation =  Manipulability
f (effort, usefulness)  Risk of capture
 Irrelevant subjects
EU eParticipation =
 Non-effective
 Not self-sustainable
 Inefficient
 Civic exhaustion
 ...
 Administrative Monopoly
of participation

26

b. Clarified basic notions about participation…

Administrative Participation

associative
Organic Participation Autonomous
E.g.: representative democracy, community
council, neighborhood assembly, health
Participation
council, citizen panels, etc.
E.g.: demonstrations, strikes, informal
decisive advisory oversight negotiations, lobbying, pressure on
representatives and institutions, civil
Special disobedience, proposals to political
Participatory Processes institutions, etc.

personal
E.g.: development plans,
participatory budget, agenda
21, etc.
collaborative belligerent
Procedural Participation
E.g.: electoral participation, petitions,
referendum, public hearings, citizen
initiative, etc.
occasional regular

Municipal Citizen Participation forms
27

b. …which are articulated with existing knowledge…
Administrative Participation Forms

(Brugué et al 2003)
Participatory Processes: phases and criteria

Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH (Font & Blanco 2006, Parés et al 2007)
28

b. …and sometimes also challenge it!!

Participatory Budgeting
Fortaleza (BR) 2005
29

2. On (e)Participation
a. Analysis that helps to understand the limitations of previous research

(Macintosh y Whyte 2002)
A framework to evaluate outcomes of e-Consultations from three criteria: political, technical and social.

!

(Macintosh et al. 2005)
Criteria and sources for
e-democracy evaluation
(Macintosh y Whyte 2008)
Layered eParticipation
evaluation perspectives
(Lippa et al. 2008)
The layered model of
eParticipation ?
30

b. Reflections that shed light on what
gets changed by ICT Vicious Cycle of
Participation

“Long Tail”
models
Cognitive
Relationship between Participation & (e)Participation Surplus
Peer-to-peer
recognition
Reduction in
power and
knowledge
assimetries

Reduction cost
of collective
action
Motivation =
f (effort, usefulness) Change
in expectations
Value generation in different kinds of networks
Virtuous Circle of
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH (e)Participation
31

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

32

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

Matrix of Citizen
Implication KEY:
Ladder of Citizen (2010)
Participation
(1969)
Intensity of
Collaboration Institutiona-
Delegated Control lization Level
Citizen Control
Collaborative Delegated power Deliberativity
Delegated power Participation
Collaboration
Partnership
pre-
Transparency
Participation
Placation
Advisement
Consultation Consultative
Participation Consultation
Information
Information
Therapy Non-
Manipulation Organic Institutionalization
Participation
Manipulation Functional Institutionalization Institutionalized
Legitimate coercion Continuous
Periodic Less Institutionalized
Conflict
Episodic
Illegal Duress
Sporadic Non Institutionalized
33

3. On eParticipation – System’s Design
a. A model for the transdisciplinary co-design of civic software…

34

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

Spy-Glass
Model

35

a. … provides guidance on how to proceed…

Spy-Glass Model
Applied

36

a. …and who to work with Core Team
to do ‘what’

Pioneers Group
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Expansion
Pilot Projects
Phase I Phase II Phase III

37

Outline
1. Introduction
5. Conclusions & Future Work

38

Conclusions & Future Work
Take-aways
• 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

Limitations
• 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

Future Work
PREAMBLE MINI-RESEARCH CO-CREATION [Feedback cycles]
Previous Preliminary αlphas cycle
Knowledge Objective
Articulated objectives,
collaborators
visions and intuitions
Theoretic internal cycle
Analysis cycle
Sociopolitical Participatory
- Refined research Design
objectives Collaborative
- Research Evaluation
Socio-technical
questions
research
Minimum viable product
Technical
research αlpha
Construction Pilot Projects

---> Doctoral Thesis βeta

Permanent βeta

Sustaining, scaling & improvement
41

Future Work

42

Thanks for your attention
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.

43

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.

44

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.

45

References – (e)Participation and Informatics (1)
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 telemáticas. 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 Informática (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.

46

References – (e)Participation and Informatics (2)
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.

47

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.

48

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

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (17)

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

Similar to PhD Defense - Pedro Prieto-Martín - Dpt. Computer Science (UAH) (20)

More from Asociación KyoPol - Symbiotic City

More from Asociación KyoPol - Symbiotic City (12)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

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