Urban in Theory and Practice: Towards a Transdisciplinary Approach Hannu Kukka1, Johanna Ylipulli1, Anna Luusua2, Anind K. Dey3 1University of Oulu, Department of and Engineering {firstname}.{lastname}@ee.oulu.fi 2University of Oulu, Faculty of Architecture {firstname}.{lastname}@oulu.fi 3Carnegie Mellon University, HCI Institute [email protected] ABSTRACT embedded into our everyday lived environments have the In this paper we present a multi-themed discussion on urban potential to alter the meanings of physical space, and affect computing. We call for a more transdisciplinary approach the activities performed in those spaces. The common to the field, and point out that urban computing systems are characteristic of these spaces is that they are public and always necessarily an amalgamation of three interrelated shared – spaces that people in general have access to, as components – space, people, and technology. Because of opposed to private or semi-public spaces such as office these three elements, we argue that computer scientists buildings or university campuses. cannot expect to stand alone and create systems that would respect the complex and messy sociocultural context in Researchers have previously drawn attention to the fact that which these technologies operate. It is only through a much of urban computing research views cities as quite deeper understanding of the existing social, cultural, and similar in terms of infrastructures and capital investments, political contexts that we can hope to build deployments especially with “world cities” such as New York, Tokyo that respect and enhance the experience of living a and London but not Kuala Lumpur, Sao Paolo or Detroit technologically mediated life, and this understanding can [16, 17, 59]. The same goes for the specific urban spaces only be achieved by including researchers from the social found within these cities – outdoor markets, walking streets, sciences as well as architecture and urban design. We will shopping malls, and other shared urban spaces located in conclude by presenting our vision for a more any city in the world are viewed as representative of other transdisciplinary approach to urban computing. such locations, anywhere in the world. This has led many of those who practice urban computing to treat these spaces as Author Keywords interchangeable. However, as we will discuss, these spaces Urban computing; ; transdisciplinary are neither interchangeable nor are they without specific research; science and technology studies; place; space. cultural meaning – and we should not ignore the very local ACM Classification Keywords and culturally specific characteristics of the location in H5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI): which a specific urban computing system is deployed. Miscellaneous Similarly, people in these spaces are not interchangeable, and should not be treated as “averages” that implicitly INTRODUCTION would represent any people, anywhere in the world. Urban computing, defined as “the integration of computing, sensing, and actuation technologies into everyday urban In this paper, we present a multi-themed discussion of the settings and lifestyles” [27, 49], is a research field, which various important aspects that make up the, at times, messy considers the use of ubiquitous computing technologies in and certainly transdisciplinary field of urban computing. urban environments. The impact of computational culture We position our discourse around the following arguments: on cities, buildings, and spaces drives with it innumerable 1. A more transdisciplinary approach to the design and kinds of change [20], Urban computing technologies evaluation of urban computing systems is required in order Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for for us to understand these systems as holistic, organic and personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are evolving constructs that necessarily include three not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies interrelated components: the built environment, the people bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be inhabiting the environment, and technologies built into the honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or environment (see e.g. [19]). We argue that a large republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific methodological and theoretical gap exists in much of permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]. current literature – or, put in another way, the

NordiCHI '14, October 26 - 30 2014, Helsinki, Finland methodological, theoretical and practical contributions of Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to relevant fields of study such as computer science, ACM. architecture and design, and social sciences do not meet in a ACM 978-1-4503-2542-4/14/10…$15.00. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2639189.2639250

658 meaningful way to build a solid basis for urban computing off-the-shelf components were used in building the urban research. testbed. 2. Smart cities are primarily built for people – the human Our starting premise is that we as researchers must move inhabitants of these urban spaces – and as such it is the towards a truly transdisciplinary approach to the field. human element that we need to concern ourselves with. We Here, following Nicolescu [42], we use the term discuss how the sociocultural processes of meaning making transdisciplinarity to signify the positioning of urban build up the technological experience [14] of encountering computing research at once between different disciplines, and living with urban computing systems. From this point across these disciplines, and beyond all discipline. The term of view, embedding technologies into any environment differs from the related concepts of multidisciplinarity, where humans are present without first understanding the where a topic is studied by several disciplines that are in existing sociocultural structures of that environment leaves service of a “home” discipline, and , many of the fundamental issues underlying the where methods from one discipline are transferred to technological intervention unaddressed. We argue that the another. Rheingold [26] has described transdisciplinary technologies we design, build and deploy in shared urban research as going “beyond bringing together researchers spaces need to be designed to also accommodate for the less from different disciplines to work in multidisciplinary technical members of the community – and, indeed, in teams. It means educating researchers who can speak the collaboration with all kinds of members of the community. languages of multiple disciplines.” The over-arching message we wish to convey here is that We will begin our discussion by exploring concepts related we, especially the urban computing researchers with to spatiality – the “”, and the spaces and places it primary background in computer science, should re-think contains. We will look at what it means for a space to the issues within today’s common practices around become a meaningful place, and what are some of the designing and deploying urban computing research works. relevant place building activities people perform to give In essence, this paper asserts two key values which should meaning to generic urban spaces. We will then move on to be centered and respected before and while conducting the social dimension of urban computing, and discuss how urban computing research - (1) “specificity” in terms of new technologies placed in everyday lived environments place, culture, and people for every instance of urban have the potential to both affect existing cultural practices, computing research instead of pursuit of generality and and create new ones. Then, using the theoretical framing reproducibility as in many scientific disciplines, and (2) presented in the previous sections, we will move on to the true “democracy” across the members of urban computing concepts of “user” and “non-user” of urban computing research teams with heterogeneous disciplinary technologies, and through this discussion demonstrate how backgrounds, leading to a transdisciplinary approach. urban computing deployments tend to be targeted to a specific user population, despite the implicit goal of Breaking the aforementioned message down, we will point designing for “everybody”. Finally, we will present our out that in order for urban computing to move forward as a vision of a more democratic and transdisciplinary way of field and for researchers to begin carrying out such carrying out urban computing research that is built on the transdisciplinary investigations, we must first understand three main elements discussed earlier. who it is we are designing for and, also, who are we leaving out; we need to understand e.g., information needs of the RE-PLACING URBAN COMPUTING potential users [31], as well as attitudes and values [62] of Anne Galloway has noted that with the advent of urban both users and non-users [53, 54]. We must also understand computing research, the discursive construction of and address the design practices of urban technologies [56]. ubiquitous computing as “everywhere” has shifted through Further, we must understand where we are designing for, a relocation of these technologies “somewhere”, and has i.e., the built environment, in order to navigate the complex thus also stressed active engagement with new technologies rules and roles different spaces impose on both the people to create more meaningful relations with the people, places, in those spaces, and the technologies we add to them [32]. and objects that surround us [21. In other words, new Finally, we must of course also understand the technology technologies built into the very fabric of our everyday lived because without it, we would not have “smart” cities. Here, environments have the potential to create new meanings, by “technology”, we understand mostly the applications / allow new sociocultural practices to form, and alter existing services layer in the technological verticality. This is practices through technologically mediated living. Of because we, as researchers, are quite often limited to course this is a reciprocal relationship – technology may working with existing technological infrastructures – there affect places and people, but both of these may, in turn, are only a few projects where researchers have deployed affect and re-appropriate technology. new infrastructures in public urban locations for extended Shifting the view of urban computing research from being periods of time. The one notable exception to this is our situated anywhere to understanding each system as socio- UBI Oulu initiative [43] in Finland, but even here mostly culturally situated entity always located somewhere has many implications for research. As Ulrik Ekman [18] puts

659 it, we need to focus on “the philosophical, sociocultural, the display”. While this description gives the reader aesthetic, and artistic implications of a computing that is several facts – the window size, the fact that it is near well on the way toward operating infinitely close to human public transportation terminals, etc. – it says nothing about culture and our life form”. In other words, looking at urban the specific sociocultural context in which the deployment computing from a phenomenological point-of-view, we is situated. must shift our focus from the strong “doing-in-the-world” Following Williams et al. [58], we echo the argument that perspective the field has traditionally followed, to an much of urban computing research views “cities” as generic embodied “being-in-the-world” perspective [49], and constructs instead of specific culturally, politically and consider the temporal, spatial and social aspects of geographically situated entities with distinct identities and technology and technology use rather than simply viewing characteristics. Understanding the human experience of the it as a “thing in itself” [9]. built environment can help provide a basis for Situating Technology: From Anywhere to Somewhere understanding the context of activities within that space, and thus help guide designers in building links between Space and place are key concepts in urban computing [17, people’s activities, their environment, and the social context 23]; however, as these terms are often used interchangeably in which they currently operate. Hence, in order to build in everyday circumstances, we must take care to specify systems that fit well within their physical and social what we mean by them. Harrison and Dourish [23] have contexts, we need a deeper understanding of these contexts expressed the difference between the terms in the following and their interrelationships both from a theoretical and manner: “Space refers to the structural and geometrical practical point of view – in other words, we must situate the qualities of a physical environment, while place includes technology. dimensions of lived experience, interaction and use of space.” Urban computing, then, views places as settings for Cultural context differs both globally and locally, and in social protocols, conventions, and values, as well as means addition to recognizing that Tokyo is not the same as for shaping our shared conception of community and Helsinki, we need to go down deeper – Harajuku is not the individual concept of identity [30, 48]. In a later essay, same as Punavuori, as within cities, two neighborhoods are Dourish [17] amended his view on space and place, noting not interchangeable. We also need to recognize that local that space and place are not “stacked” on top of one another places within a neighborhood are not interchangeable in a “layer-cake” model [28] but are rather related in several containers of “test users” – a library is not the same as a complex ways making them a product of political, shopping mall, and an outdoor market is not the same as an organizational, economic and historical practices. Massey airport. We argue that urban computing systems cannot be [35] has described places as “articulated moments in viewed as placed anywhere – they are always situated in a networks of social relations”, again highlighting the certain specific cultural, political, social, and geographical complex relationship of physical spaces, existing cultural context, i.e., somewhere. In order to understand these practices, and social relationships between people in these systems as situated entities, we must also understand how a spaces. generic space becomes a meaningful place, and how the addition of new technologies to existing places can affect Despite the centrality of the idea that urban computing the cultural meanings and values attached to them. A good systems are always situated in a certain place, the example of situated urban computing research can be found situatedness of technologies in space and place are often in [4], where the researchers first conducted extensive overlooked both in the design and analysis of these systems. ethnographic work in a very specific place – the London Spaces and places are effectively physical locations in underground – to understand the pre-existing sociocultural which social activities occur, yet the details which values and activities, and used this knowledge to inform the constitute physical and social contexts are not well design of their prototype. understood, at least in a way that would help inform the design of new ubiquitous computing technologies [46, 47]. In practice, our point here is that since urban computing The cultural, political, and social context of space/place are systems are always situated culturally, politically and not seen as important considerations when discussing or geographically, we should not expect the place and people describing an urban computing deployment, but are rather to be interchangeable. As discussed earlier, an urban explained away by high-level characterizations (see e.g., computing system is an amalgamation of the location in [25, 39]). which it is situated, the people living with it, and the technology itself. Out of these, only the technology can be For example, when describing the well-known CityWall replicated, but we can hardly expect the exact same results deployment in Helsinki, Finland, Peltonen et al. [50] when 2 out of 3 aspects of the actual system are different. explain that their display is located “in a central location in Helsinki […] The site was a 2.5-meter-wide shop window Despite our focus on the situated technologies view on next to a café located between the main bus and train urban computing, there are a number of applications that stations. The two stations are used by 400 000 passengers can be described as urban computing systems that do not each day, and there is a great deal of pedestrian traffic past rely on any specific location, but instead utilize population

660 density and personal proximity as their main premise. With technologies in public spaces. These performances can be the proliferation of smart phones, apps such as Uber, understood to add to the sociological and cultural milieu in Tinder, Grindr, Airbnb, etc., have introduced novel ways which the performance acquires its meaning and cultural for urbanites to connect, communicate, and share resources significance. Hence, place building includes an intricate with each other on a city-wide scale. In this paper, however, interplay between the space and the interaction with and we will mostly focus on situated systems and the between people and technology, and extends it with cultural relationship between place-making and technology. dimensions, making it a useful addition to the tools that can be applied when considering the deployment of a Making Places: Situating Technology technology in a given public setting [41]. An urban computing deployment should not start with the technology – that is, the actual technical system should not In order for a space to become a meaningful place, it must be the starting point for any urban computing project. be defined in relation to a wide variety of social, material, Putting the technology first can lead to a situation where a and cultural entities. Dourish and Bell [16] note that spaces prototype/system is developed in a lab, and a location for are never neutral, and their interpretive structure frames the testing it is then selected post-hoc. This in turn can encounter with urban computing technologies. Similarly, potentially lead to deploying wrong technology in the the opportunities afforded by these new technologies allow wrong place, and instead of complementing and for a re-interpretation and re-encountering with the meaning augmenting the existing cultural practices and human of space for its inhabitants, effectively making the activities in that place, the technology may clash with them experience of space coextensive with the cultural practice and thus cause people to either ignore the deployment, or of everyday life. The transformation of space through the even resent it (see e.g., [29]). introduction of novel computing artifacts must then be seen in this context; the technologies transform the ‘cultural Hence, understanding the existing human activities, cultural work’ being done in space, but also become sites of cultural practices, and the holistic nature of a given place should be production themselves. It is this cultural understanding that the starting off point for an urban computing deployment. then provides a frame for encountering space as a McCullough has previously called for a “focus on habits meaningful and coherent place, and relating it to human rather than novelties, on people rather than machines, and activities. on the richness of existing place rather than inventions from thin air." [38]. In other words, we need to first explore However, in addition to the re-interpretation and re- and understand the place in which the deployment is to encountering of the meaning of space for the people happen, understand the people and their activities in that suggested by Dourish and Bell, we must also be mindful of location, and then design a system that will support these the reciprocal relationship between space and technology: activities and fit the selected location – to understand the Technology may allow people to re-interpret and re- situatedness of these technologies. To accomplish this, we encounter a space by shifting and changing the existing will explore theories of how space is given meaning and meanings given to the space, but it may also impart this place is created. change on people. People use clues found in the environment to interpret the meaning of space, and this For anthropologists and for other social researchers, place is interpretation can be affected by changing these clues [10]. a complex thing created by people’s interactions with each For example, consider how the friendly clerk at a local bank other and their environment. It comes into existence when who always had time to exchange a few words with the the fluxes of goods, information and people meet and customer created a comfortable and relaxed atmosphere. separate again and when history and memory are When the clerk is replaced by an automated teller machine, confronted with the present. Place is also always affected the nature of that place shifts to a busy, efficient, and by certain power structures that limit and create impersonal corporate setting where people line up, interact possibilities, and it is within this framework that people with the machine, and leave without exchanging a word. give meanings to spaces, making them places. The nature of the place was certainly changed, and this Motta et al. [41] note that place building activities people change was brought on by the introduction of new employ in their everyday life are highly varied, and are as technology. Hence, we suggest that it is important to much about appropriation as they are about the negotiation understand and respect the cultural practices and human and control of space when interacting with other people. activities that exist in a place selected for new technology Miller [40] describes place building as an intellectual, deployment. Technology should be used to support these symbolic and material practice that not only enables the practices and activities rather than clash with them, or production of a sense of place, but also promotes “the attempt to introduce new activities that are in conflict with human capacity to expand worlds towards other potentially the nature of the place. distant horizons and more complex outcomes of life”. Elaborating on the issue of technologies supporting existing Further, Motta et al. argue that place-building practices practices and activities in a given space, some researchers through situated technologies also involve an element of have talked about the difficulties of getting people to performance, which people enact when interacting with

661 interact with their public deployments, even framing it as a to understand technology not just as a tool but rather as an “battle” [2, 6]. We would point out that if a technology is integral part of everyday processes and activities. Applied designed to respect and add to the existing human activities to urban computing, this concept allows us to shift our that occur in a given place, inviting interaction should not focus from viewing embedded technologies in everyday be a “battle” but something that will occur naturally. When lived environments as simple networked objects [22], to the technology and the existing cultural practices clash, understanding them as part of diverse procedures or inviting interaction becomes a battle – and when they performances loaded with more meaning than simple harmoniously support each other, the technology becomes a technical operation or the completion of a given, specific natural addition to these practices and there is no need for a task. Put another way, we must begin to understand urban battle – a good example of which is found in [41]. computing artifacts as inherently social entities that both affect and are affected by the sociocultural meanings people A simple contrary example can be found in a recent article assign them through processes such as adaptation, by Memarovic et al. [39]. When discussing their urban domestication, and (re-)appropriation. computing deployment in the city of Oulu, in Finland, the authors explain that their mobile application, designed for The point we wish to make here is that the current strong Android phones, was not used much because “people technological focus in the field of urban computing has a mostly owned [Nokia] phones running Symbian, and more major impact on the way we interpret these technologies; recently Windows Mobile”. However, Nokia has always that is, as if they somehow existed in a vacuum, apart from been culturally very significant to the Finns, because it is a the context in which they operate. As a consequence, our Finnish company, and particularly for the people of Oulu understanding of the societal impacts of these technologies since, until recently, much R&D for Nokia phones took remains incomplete and, as mentioned before, we may end place there. People take pride in owning Nokia devices. up in a situation where we are actually deploying the wrong Understanding this cultural fact might have persuaded the technologies in wrong places, thus causing a clash between designers to implement their application for Nokia phones the existing sociocultural practices and the new technology. instead of Android, and thus their system might have been This is why a more reflective approach should be adopted; accepted and used more extensively. we should recognize our own subjectivity and limitations when designing and evaluating new urban technologies, and This, we maintain, is why understanding the existing always reflect on our own decisions and practices. sociocultural practices and the nature of a place are so Technologies are always situated, but so is our knowledge. important when building urban computing systems, and why involving experts from the fields of architecture and On the (Coming of) Age of Ubiquitous Computing social sciences in the process is so crucial – it is through A starting premise for our discourse presented here is that this understanding that we are able to design and deploy the the era of ubiquitous computing is already here. It is no right technology in the right place instead of deploying longer a vision of a proxemic technological future (a time some technology, somewhere. always just around the corner, but never quite in reach) [5], but rather a lived reality. Today, in developed urban areas, RE-INTERPRETING URBAN COMPUTING computing resources surround us continuously, and with In our interpretation, a vast majority of work done in the modern-day social networking services, the boundaries field of urban computing asks “how do we do urban between physical, virtual and social have blurred to the computing?” – that is, approaches the field through a focus point of disappearing; a person can be sitting in a coffee typical for an applied science with a very technological shop, attending an international business meeting, and standpoint and a strong push towards building new systems socializing with his/her spouse, all at the same time. – one prototype after another [57]. However, we suggest that it is equally – if not more – important to ask: “what The augmented environment thus has potential to become a does it mean to do urban computing?” – that is, to also stimulating, enticing, and rich force where the subject’s understand and reflect on these systems as a sociocultural emotional and cognitive engagement with it is characterized product and part of certain cultural, historical and political by intensity, and where “mediated experience” is quickly contexts. becoming a second nature to many [7] – or a terrifying maze of incomprehensible technologies, inaccessible and Towards More Reflective Urban Computing Technical innovation has been considered as a cultural confusing to those without the required technical skills and practice and explored within social studies of science and devices to operate in these environments. We wish to technology (see e.g., [33, 55]). However, the problem of emphasize that we are not making a value statement here – relating these theories to technology design and everyday that living an augmented life of “mediated experience” life persists [22]. Mackenzie [36] introduced the term would necessarily be somehow “better”. However, the ‘transduction’ to describe a way of thinking about reality is that technology is increasingly pervading our lived technologies as a series of events rather than objects, and to environments, and especially in high-density urban settings refocus investigations towards non-representational leading an “analogue” life is becoming difficult. This is why it is important to also reflect on the concept of “user” understandings of technological practice – in other words,

662 of urban computing systems. As these systems live in the Wyatt [61] urges us to distinguish between ‘real users’ in public domain, all human inhabitants of these shared urban the ‘real world’ and the images of those users and their spaces necessarily share them but, as we will point out next, relationships held by designers, engineers, and other sorts the concept of “user” becomes a moving target that should of system builders. Simon Penny [49] notes that the actual be explored in more detail. term ‘human factors’ speaks volumes about the ‘engineering mindset’ in computer sciences where the RE-ENCOUNTERING URBAN COMPUTING qualities of human embodiment and experience are reduced Urban computing researchers often have a tendency to treat to mere peripheral ‘implementation details’, and Bannon [3] people as homogeneous groups of “users” divided into points out that the very idea of “the user” reconfigures a manageable categories such as “young adults”, “elder people” or “visitors” with a strong focus on “young urban multifaceted human being as an adjunct to a piece of professionals” as the desired or imagined user of urban hardware or software. computing systems [13, 15, 59]. Marsden et al. have Dourish et al. [16] note that with ubiquitous computing previously pointed out that these “averages” are of limited systems in urban environments, many design efforts focus use for design [37], and Oudshoorn and Pinch [44] have their attention on young, affluent city residents, with remarked that the “very act of identifying specific disposable income, a penchant for gadgets, and individuals or groups as users may facilitate or constrain discretionary mobility. Following Rogers [51], we use the the actual role groups of users are allowed to play in term technological aristocracy to refer to the people with shaping the development and use of technologies”. the right set of skills, devices and interests to live a truly augmented life. Rogers compares this group of people to Hence, as we will discuss next, the whole concept of “user” the aristocracy of Victorian England, with a raft of is a difficult one especially with urban computing systems. With more “traditional” computing systems meant for e.g., (technological) servants at their beck and call, ready to office or production environments, identifying the “user” is satisfy their every want and need. much easier – these systems are built for a specific purpose, Foth et al. [19] note that “the main challenge to bring about to be used by people whose job it is to accomplish certain significant changes in societies is to ensure equal access to tasks. The “user” is known, and people can be trained to technologies and associated literacy skills.” We heartily use the new system. With urban computing the situation is second this statement, and point out that in order to move different. People from all walks of life serendipitously beyond the current status quo and understand encounter urban computing artifacts, and most often will technologically mediated urban life not only from the point- not have received any type of training in their purpose or of-view of the technological aristocracy but as a whole, it is use. They are required to determine what the particular important to also take what Susan Leigh Star has called system is for, make a decision to actively engage with the ‘non-standard users of information technologies’ [52] – a system, and learn to use it on the spot, often in a stressful term used to highlight the differences in power relations public setting. The implicit notion designers often have is among the multiple actors involved in the development and that their system is meant for everybody – when in fact they usage of technology – into consideration. are actually designing for an idealized user who represents the designer in both skills and interest. This is called the I- The vision of urban computing called for the computer to methodology, and we will return to the concept a bit later – live in the physical world with humans, and now that it but first we will discuss the underlying concept of “user” in does, people get exposed to these technologies whether they more detail. want to or not, thus making non-technical people effectively (unknowing) victims of these technologies [44]. Computing Everywhere – Just not for Everyone Adele Clarke refers to this group as implicated actors, The word ubiquitous comes from the Latin word ubique “those silent or not present but affected by the action” [12]. meaning everywhere - but there are no connotations to the She further divides the implicated actors group into two word that whatever is ubique would also be omnes - for categories: “those not physically present but who are everyone. If we maintain the assumption that ubiquitous discursively constructed and targeted by others” and “those computing is a modern-day reality instead of a revolution who are physically present but who are generally looming in ‘proxemic future’ [5] and accept the fact that silenced/ignored/made invisible by those in power” [11]. computing is already ubique but not omnes - everywhere but not for everyone - we must ask ourselves: who are the Satchell and Dourish [53] identify six forms of non-use: users we are designing for. lagging adoption, active resistance, disenchantment, disenfranchisement, displacement, and disinterest. In accordance with Dourish and Mainwaring who have Similarly, Wyatt [60] identifies four categories of such non- argued to ban the term “user” entirely, we conscientiously users: resisters (people who have never used a certain surround the word with quotation marks to signify that the technology because they do not want to), rejectors (people entire term “user” (or “non-user”) automatically positions a who do not use a given technology anymore because of lack person with respect to “our technology” or “our service”, of interest or due to cost, or because they have alternatives), instead of looking at that person’s own concerns [13]. Sally the excluded (people who have never used a technology

663 because they cannot for a variety of reasons), and the different image.” [24]. New technologies can —and will— expelled (people who have stopped using the technology alter the existing hierarchies and rules, and therefore their involuntarily because of cost or the loss of access). We possible effects, both good and bad, should be considered would add another sub-category to the excluded, namely carefully [10, 32]. neglected users; people who might be interested in using a This discussion should point to an important if often certain technology but are not aware of the possibility, or overlooked fact: more often than not, the imagined user of do not have the right tools or skills to do so. urban computing systems is portrayed as “everybody” While Clarke writes from a feminist sociologist point of instead of “somebody”. This, as we will discuss next, leads view, these characterizations reflect the situation with urban to a situation where the individual is lost in favor of an computing and it’s “(non-)users” as well. Those in power, “everybody user” who is in fact an idealized personification the designers of urban computing systems, have a tendency with certain specific skills and interests, and represents the to silence/ignore/make invisible those who are ‘not in designer more than an actual user. scope’ of, or ‘down with’, the new technology The ‘Everybody’ User developments – or this might happen despite the designers’ Looking at the majority of work performed in the fields of best intentions. As an example, in an early “digital city” ubiquitous and especially urban computing, the “user” of project in Amsterdam [45], the designers of the digital city these systems is more often than not framed as “everybody” first decided to include public access terminals in several – with the underlying assumptions discussed earlier, where urban locations including a café, the city hall, a library and “everybody” actually includes people with the right skills, a senior citizens home in order to ensure democratic access interests and technologies to become “users”. In their to their service. However, the terminals were removed some discussion, Oudshoorn et al. [45] point out that despite the time later, mainly because the owners of these spaces goals of designing for “everybody”, the “everybody user” is complained about the terminals and the people they often lost along the way as designers (due to several attracted: “they sat there for hours without ordering reasons, conscious and/or unconscious) revert to using the anything”; “they gave a tramp-image”; and “they made the I-methodology, where the designer creates a user who surroundings look untidy”. actually represents the designer in skills and interests. This is well in line with Law and Bijker [34], who note that Akrich [1] describes the I-methodology as the “reliance on technological artifacts always contain implicit models of personal experience, whereby the designer replaces his their intended users, including certain rules about the professional hat by that of the layman”. An illustrative expected activities to be performed, resources to example can be found in Memarovic et al. [39], where the accomplish those activities, and assumptions about user authors demonstrate their (unconscious) use of the I- characteristics [8]. However, as we see from the case of the methodology and their portrayal of the “user” as everybody: digital city in Amsterdam, the issue is not quite as simple as “Yet, for a general audience, textual descriptions or explicit that, and the characteristics of e.g., a certain physical space help buttons might be required. As a solution we tried to may also contain such implicit (or explicit) models of their use a QR code […], which featured a surrounding text intended users. If the expectations of the “user” of the ‘Take this fun fact with you’. Apart from the QR code itself, physical space and the “user” of the urban computing no other explanation […] was offered as we assumed that system do not meet, as in the example, a conflict arises and users would be familiar with the codes. However, most can only be solved by either i) modifying the “user” model users ended up trying to click on the code” (emphasis ours). of the space; or ii) modifying the “user” model of the system. In the case of the digital city the conflict resulted in As we can see from the discussion above, the “everybody the system being removed from the space, and with it the user” is often a misconception – an ideal yet elusive unwelcome types of people. personification of a user who represents the designer in skills, interests, and access to / willingness to use Thus, we need to consider also the power dynamics and technology. We call this approach into question, and would hierarchies that define people’s behavior in public urban challenge researchers and practitioners to reconsider spaces [22]. Sociocultural, sometimes very local, rules framing their work in such general terms. Who was the determine how we are supposed to behave in relation to system really developed for, and why was this group of public installations but also in relation to other people; what people selected? What implications does this selection have kind of actions we are allowed to take; who is welcomed in on the results – and would the results truly generalize to all public places and who is not; this is something David people, everywhere? Instead of portraying “users” as Harvey has called ‘the right to the city’. He writes: “...but averages and composites, could we actually learn more of new rights can also be defined: like the right to the city the complex amalgamation of place, people and technology which is not merely a right of access to what the property by focusing on the individual – somebody – rather than an speculators and state planners define, but an active right to anonymous composite person made up of a number of make the city different, to shape it more in accord with our people falling into a given demographic category, and on a heart's desire, and to re-make ourselves thereby in a specific place rather than a random space? We argue that

664 this is indeed the case, and that in order for us to reach such of computing, sensing and actuation technologies into an understanding, researchers must work together over everyday urban settings and lifestyles”. disciplinary borders and contribute their expertise in a Our suggestion for a new definition is: “Urban computing democratic way. This will not happen by a single researcher is the amalgamation of cultural practices, everyday or a group of researchers from the same background activities, and implicit values of specific people situated in borrowing methods from other disciplines, but through true a unique urban location that is defined both in terms of transdisciplinary collaboration. architectural qualities and cultural meanings. These are RE-IMAGINING URBAN COMPUTING augmented by one or more technological systems that As often highlighted in the previous sections, urban respect and support the aforementioned practices and computing, by its very nature, is not a purely engineering activities in a non-intrusive way that enhances rather than subject. Unlike other “hard” sciences where researchers redefines that given location”. strive to minimize external effects such as location, time of day, season of the year, etc. on their experiment in favor of To conduct urban computing research as imagined in the a stable, predictable and controllable laboratory setting, proposed definition, it becomes crucial to understand a urban computing deals with the messiness of everyday life given deployment as a whole – that is, encompassing all the on a day-to-day basis. Therefore we cannot expect elements mentioned before, situated in a unique context and laboratory-like control and predictability when working in used by unique people. Research must not start from a such highly public, at times chaotic environments. Further, particular technology but rather from a given place, located as we have stressed previously, urban computing operates in an architecturally specific built space and in a at the intersection of places, people, and technologies, and geographically located specific cultural setting. We must this complexity clearly illustrates the need for experts from look at the people inhabiting that space, and understand the various fields collaborating in a meaningful and democratic meanings they give that space to make it a meaningful manner. place. We must observe the activities people perform, and consider the effect any technological deployment will have The triad of place, people, and technology is certainly not on those activities and the sociocultural meanings new, and has been suggested as a research nexus for associated with it. Then, and only then, should we start instance by Foth et al. [19]. In their discussion, the authors designing the technological intervention, keeping in mind have opted to use the term rather than who it is we are actually designing for, and what it means urban computing to steer the focus away from technology for the people we are not designing for to continue and more towards the human element and the softer aspects inhabiting the to-be-augmented environment – that is, to be of information exchange, communication, and interaction. mindful of our users and non-users alike, and not attempt to The Urban Informatics research group in QUT, Australia, is design for the everybody user. a wonderful example of a transdisciplinary undertaking with a strong focus on issues related to technologically We envision a future where urban computing becomes a mediated urban life. Unfortunately, it is one of the few truly truly transdisciplinary undertaking. In our vision social transdisciplinary (or even multidisciplinary) research teams scientists, architects, and computer scientists come together in this arguably important field of study. in a meaningful and democratic way, building the right technology in the right place for the right people. This will Generally speaking, even in cases where researchers from hopefully lead to better understanding of the complex different fields collaborate, computer scientists nevertheless human-city-technology relationship, and consequently give seem to lead the process, make the final design decisions, people from all walks of life a more democratic possibility disseminate the results, and even apply methods borrowed of participating in a technologically meditated life – should from other disciplines. Specialists from other fields, when they so choose. involved at all, tend to act as consultants, leading to a ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS superficial application of these methods. Dourish [17] has The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support previously discussed the issue of asymmetrical co-operation received from the Academy of Finland, Carnegie Mellon practices between ethnography and HCI. Its roots can be, at University, and the Urban Interactions Research Program. least partially, found in the academic and funding structures: the ones with better resources are the ones REFERENCES making final decisions. As this hierarchy is caused by 1. Akrich, M. (1995) User representations: Practices, funding decisions and structures, a possible way forwards methods and sociology. In: Managing technology in would be joint funding applications and projects designed society: The approach of constructive technology as transdisciplinary and democratic from the very start. assessment. London: Pinter Publishers, 167-184. We imagine a new direction for urban computing research. 2. Agamanolis, S. (2003) Designing Displays for Human As a starting point, we would suggest a new definition for Connectedness. In: Public and Situated Displays: Social urban computing, to replace the previous one put forth by and Interactional Aspects of Shared Display Kindberg et al. [27]: “Urban computing [is the] integration Technologies. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

665 3. Bannon, L. (1991). From human factors to human 19. Foth, M., Choi, J. H. J., & Satchell, C. (2011). Urban actors: The role of psychology and human-computer informatics. Proc. CSCW ’11, pp. 1-8, ACM. interaction studies in system design. Design at work: 20. Fuller, M. (2013) Foreword. In: Throughout: Art and Cooperative design of computer systems, 25-44. Culture Emerging with Ubiquitous Computing. MIT 4. Bassoli, A., Brewer, J., Dourish, P., Martin, K., Press. Mainwaring, S. (2007) Underground Aesthetics: 21. Galloway, A. (2013) Affective Politics in Urban Rethinking Urban Computing. IEEE Pervasive Computing and Locative Media. In: Throughout: Art Computing, vol. 6, issue 3, 39-45. and Culture Emerging with Ubiquitous Computing, 351- 5. Bell, G. & Dourish, P. (2007) Yesterday’s tomorrows: 364, MIT Press. notes on ubiquitous computing’s dominant vision. Pers. 22. Galloway, A. (2004) Intimations of Everyday Life. Ubiquit. Comput. 11:2, 133-143. Cultural Studies, vol. 18, no. 2/3, 384-408. 6. Brignull, H. & Rogers, Y. (2003) Enticing People to 23. Harrison, S. & Dourish, P. (1996) Re-Place-ing space: Interact with Large Public Displays in Public Spaces. the roles of space and place in collaborative systems. Proc. INTERACT’03, 17-24. Proc. CSCW ’96, 67-76. 7. Bull, M. (2013) The End of Flânerie: iPods, Aesthetics, 24. Harvey, D. (2003) The Right to the City. International and Urban Experience. In: Throughout: Art and Culture Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27 (4), 939 Emerging with Ubiquitous Computing, 351-364, MIT 941. Press. 25. Hernandez, J., Hoque, M., Drevo, W., Picard, R. (2012) 8. Carroll, J., Howard, S., Vetere, F., Peck, J., & Murphy, Mood Meter Counting Smiles in the Wild. Proc. J. (2001). Identity, power and fragmentation in UbiComp ’12, 301-310. cyberspace: technology appropriation by young people. 26. IFTF. Science & Technology Perspectives: 2005-2055 Proc. ACIS’01, 95-102. (Report No. SR-967), Institute for the Future, Palo Alto, 9. Chalmers, M. & Galani, A. (2004) Seamful CA, 2006. interweaving: heterogeneity in the theory and design of interactive systems. Proc. DIS’04, 243-252. 27. Kindberg, C., Chalmers, M., Paulos, E. (2007) Guest Editor’s Introduction: Urban Computing. IEEE 10. Ciolfi, L., & Bannon, L. J. (2005). Space, place and the Pervasive Computing, 6(3), 18-20. design of technologically-enhanced physical environments. In Spaces, spatiality and technology. 28. Kling, R., McKim, G., Fortuna, J., King, A. (2000) Springer Netherlands, pp. 217-232 Scientific Collaboratories as Socio-Technical Interaction Networks: A Theoretical Approach. 11. Clarke, A.E. (2005) Situational analysis: Grounded Americas Conference on Information Systems, Long Theory after the Postmoder Turn. Sage publishing. Beach, CA. 12. Clarke, A.E. (1998) Disciplining Reproduction: 29. Korn, M. & Bodker, S. (2012) Looking ahead – how Modernity, American Life and the ‘Problem of Sex’. field trials can work in iterative and exploratory design University of Chicago Press. of ubicomp systems. Proc. Ubicomp’12, 21-30. 13. Dourish, P. & Mainwaring, S. (2012) Ubicomp’s 30. Kostakos, V., O'Neill, E., Penn, A. (2006) Designing Colonial Impulse. Proc. UbiComp’12, 133-142. Urban Pervasive Systems. Computer 39(9) 52-59. 14. Dourish, P. & Bell, G. (2011) Divining a Digital Future: 31. Kukka, H., Kostakos, V., Ojala, T., Ylipulli, J., Mess and Mythodology in Ubiquitous Computing. MIT Suopajärvi, T., Jurmu, M., Hosio, S. (2013) This Is Not Press. Classified: Everyday Information Seeking and 15. Dourish, P., Anderson, K. & Nafus, D. (2007) Cultural Encountering in Smart Urban Spaces. Pers. Ubiq. Mobilities: Diversity and Agency in Urban Computing. Comp. 17(1), 15-27. Proc. INTERACT’07, 100-113. 32. Kukka, H., Luusua, A., Ylipulli, J., Suopajärvi, T., 16. Dourish, P. & Bell, G. (2007) The infrastructure of Kostakos, V. Ojala, T. (2014) From Cyberpunk to Calm experience and the experience of infrastructure: meaning Urban Computing: Exploring the Role of Technology in and structure in everyday encounters with space. the Future Cityscape. Technological Forecasting and Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. Social Change, 84, 29-42. 34, 414-430. 33. Latour, B. (1999) Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the 17. Dourish, P. (2006) Re-Space-ing Place: “Place” and Reality of Science Studies. Harvard University Press, “Space” Ten Years On. Proc. CSCW’06, 299-308. Cambridge, MA. 18. Ekman, U. (2013) Introduction. In: Throughout: Art and 34. Law, J. & Bijker, W.E. (1992) Postscript: technology, Culture Emerging with Ubiquitous Computing. MIT stability, and social theory. In: Shaping Press. technology/building society: studies in sociotechnical change. MIT Press, 290-308.

666 35. Massey, D. (1993) Power-geometry and a progressive 49. Penny, S. (2013). Trying to be Calm: Ubiquity, sense of place. In Mapping the futures: Local cultures, Cognitivism, and Embodiment. In: Throughout: Art and global change. Routledge, New York. Culture Emerging with Ubiquitous Computing. MIT 36. Mackenzie, A.: Transduction: invention, innovation and Press, 263-278. collective life. Retrieved Jun 8, 2013, from 50. Peltonen, P., Kurvinen, E., Salovaara, A., Jacucci, G., http://www.lancs.ac.uk/staff/mackenza/papers/transducti Ilmonen, T., Evans, J., Saarikko, P. (2008). It's Mine, on.pdf Don't Touch!: interactions at a large multi-touch display 37. Marsden, G., Maunder, A. & Parker, M. (2008) People in a city centre. Proc. CHI’08, 1285-1294. are people, but technology is not technology. Phil. 51. Rogers, Y. (2006) Moving on from Weiser’s Vision of Trans. R. Soc. A 366, 3795-3804. Calm Computing: Engaging UbiComp Experiences. 38. McCullough, M. (2004) Digital Ground: Architecture, Proc. UbiComp’06, 404-421. Pervasive Computing, and Environmental Knowing. 52. Star, S, L. (1991) Power, Technology, and the MIT Press. Phenomenology of Conventions: On Being Allergic to 39. Memarovic, N., Langheinrich, M., Cheverst, K., Taylor, Onions. In: A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, N. and Alt, F. (2013) P-LAYERS – A layered Technology and Domination. Routledge, 26-55. framework addressing the multi-faceted issues facing 53. Satchell, C., & Dourish, P. (2009). Beyond the user: use community-supporting public display deployments. and non-use in HCI. Proc.OzCHI ’09, pp. 9-16, ACM. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 20, 3, Article 17, 54. Selwyn, N. (2003). Apart from technology: 34 pages understanding people’s non-use of information and 40. Miller, D. (2011) Tales from Facebook. Polity Press. communication technologies in everyday 41. Motta, W., Fatah gen Schieck, A., Schnädelbach, H., life. Technology in society, 25(1), 99-116. Kostopoulou, E., Behrens, M., North, S & Ye, L. (2013) 55. Stengers, I. (2000). The Invention of Modern Science. Considering Communities, Diversity and the Production University of Minnesota Press. of Locality in the Design of Networked Urban Screens. 56. Suopajärvi, T., Ylipulli, J., Kinnunen, T. (2012) Proc. INTERACT’13, 315-322. “Realities behind ICT dreams”: Designing a Ubiquitous 42. Nicolescu, B. (2001) Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity. City in a Living Lab Environment. Int. Journ. of Translated from French by Karen-Claire Voss. State Gender, Science and Technology, vol. 4, no. 2, 232-252 University of New York Press: New York. 57. Weise, S., Hardy, J., Agarwal, P., Coulton, P., Friday, 43. Ojala T, Kostakos V, Kukka H, Heikkinen T, Lindén T, A., Chiasson, M. (2012) Democratizing Ubiquitous Jurmu M, Hosio S, Kruger F & Zanni D (2012) Computing – a Right for Locality. Proc. Ubicomp’12, Multipurpose interactive public displays in the wild: 521-530. Three years later. Computer 45(5):42-49. 58. Williams et al. (2008) Urbane-ing the City: Examining 44. Oudshoorn, N. & Pinch, T. (2008) User-Technology and Refining the Assumptions Behind Urban Relationships: Some Recent Developments. In: The Informatics. Handbook of Research on Urban Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, MIT Informatics: the Practice and Promise of the Real-Time Press, 541-565 City. Reference, USA. 45. Oudshoorn, N., Rommes, E. & Stienstra, M. (2004) 59. Williams, A. & Dourish, P. (2006) Imagining the City: Configuring the User as Everybody: Gender and Design The Cultural Dimensions of Urban Computing. Cultures in Information and Communication Computer, vol.39, no.9, 38-43. Technologies. Science, Technology & Human Values, 60. Wyatt, S., Thomas, G., Terranova, T. (2003) They vol. 29, no. 1, 30-63 Came, They Surfed, They Went Back to the Beach: 46. Paay, J., Kjeldskov, J., Howard, S., Dave, B. (2009) Conceptualizing Use and Non-use of the Internet. In: Out on the Town: A socio-physical approach to the Virtual Society? Get Real! Technology, Cyberhole, design of a context-aware mobile guide. ACM Trans. Reality. Oxford University Press, 23-41. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 16, 2, Article 7. 61. Wyatt, S. (2008). Technological determinism is dead; 47. Paay, J., & Kjeldskov, J. (2005) Understanding and long live technological determinism. In: The handbook Modeling the Built Environment for Mobile Guide of science and technology studies, MIT Press, 165-180. Interface Design. Behaviour and Information 62. Ylipulli, J. & Suopajärvi, T. (2013) Contesting ubicomp Technology, 24(1):21-35 visions through ICT practices: Power negotiations in the 48. Paulos, E. & Jenkins, T. (2005) Urban probes: meshwork of a technologised city. International encountering our emerging urban atmospheres. Proc. Communication Gazette, 75(5-6), 538-554. CHI’05, 341-350.

667