=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3901/paper_8
|storemode=property
|title=Toward Just Smart Cities: Community-based Art Organisations as Partners in Design Justice
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3901/paper_8.pdf
|volume=Vol-3901
|authors=Aida Kalender,Giovanni Sileno,Sennay Ghebreab
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/tethics/KalenderSG24
}}
==Toward Just Smart Cities: Community-based Art Organisations as Partners in Design Justice==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3901/paper_8.pdf
Toward Just Smart Cities: Community-based Arts
Organisations as Partners in Design Justice
Aida Kalender1,* , Giovanni Sileno1 and Sennay Ghebreab1
1
Socially Intelligent Artificial Systems (SIAS), Informatics Institute, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Abstract
The smart city paradigm has had a prominent role in urban planning, management, and operations for the last two
decades; it is seen as a potential solution to challenges stemming from fast urban growth, and considered to be
essential for a sustainable future. Initially taking the shape of optimistic top-down projects in which technology
is deemed to solve all social issues, it has recently faced considerable criticism. Shift towards the so-called
“human-centric design”, which places the end-user at the centre of the design process is however not realising
its promises: introducing “co-creation” processes with pre-determined manners of interaction with users often
leads to pseudo-participation. A particular danger lies in applying this approach to marginalised communities,
where the one-size-fits-all logic fails to encompass the full complexity of identities and of needs at stake, and
of the various levels of oppression exhibited by the existing power relationships. Sensitivity of marginalised
groups calls for different approaches to tech innovations in smart cities, as those focusing on concepts such as
intersectionality and principles of social justice. Frameworks such as Design Justice are in particular intended
to promote community-led practices and collaboration between designers and social movements. The paper
introduces a series of critical questions reconsidering the Design Justice framework in the context of digital
innovation and smart cities. Furthermore, attempting to reintroduce art and culture into the discussion on
sustainable urban development, the paper elaborates by means of a few examples on whether community-based
arts organisations can play a role in design justice, suggesting that they could become key partners in this
endeavour.
Keywords
smart cities, co-creation, social justice-informed design, data justice, digital inequality, innovation policies, social
inclusion, design justice, participatory design, community-based art organisations, ethical design
1. Introduction
Over the past two decades, we have witnessed an expansion of technological innovations in the field of
urban planning, management, and operations, with the intent to improve citizens’ lives and to address
social issues. Indeed, social and economic problems in cities have been generally traced back to a lack
of adequate innovation. As a result, large transnational, national, and city authorities have adopted
comprehensive innovation programs, one of the dominant concepts being the “smart city”. Typically,
smart cities are envisioned to employ information and communication technologies to improve the
quality of life for their citizens, the local economy, transport, traffic management, environment and
interaction with government. These technologies may include, among others, big data analytics, cloud
computing, IoT, blockchain, robotics, 3D printing, 5G and Artificial Intelligence (AI) [1]. Implementation
of these solutions is generally enabled by cooperation among governments, knowledge institutions
and businesses. In a systematic review of literature centred on an information systems (IS) perspective
of smart cities, Ismagilova et al. (2019) [2] argue that the technological aspects of smart cities have
been extensively researched within the literature (therefore, the concept emerges primarily within
a technological discourse). Yet, more recent studies (after 2012) have taken a wider IS perspective,
TETHICS’24: 7th Conference on Technology Ethics, November 6–7, 2024, Tampere, Finland
*
Corresponding author.
†
The ideation of this work relies on discussions among the three authors. For the production of the article, AK conducted
the literature review, consolidated the analysis and identified the critical questions, writing most of the text. GS and SG
contributed with supervision, review, and editing.
$ a.kalender@uva.nl (A. Kalender); g.sileno@uva.nl (G. Sileno); s.ghebreab@uva.nl (S. Ghebreab)
0009-0003-9773-3891 (A. Kalender); 0000-0001-5155-9021 (G. Sileno); 0009-0007-5788-4635 (S. Ghebreab)
© 2024 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR
ceur-ws.org
Workshop ISSN 1613-0073
Proceedings
focusing on aspects such as citizens, quality of living and sustainability.
Despite its futuristic imaginary, the development of smart cities entails inherent risks and challenges
that require further ethical examination. The uncritical introduction of technological solutions may
exacerbate problematic aspects of existing solutions while also creating new challenges. From a
systematic review of ethical concerns, Ziosi et al. [3] identify four dimensions that stem from the
current debate on smart cities: (1) network infrastructure, with the corresponding concerns of control,
surveillance, and data privacy and ownership; (2) post-political governance, embodied in the tensions
between public and private decision-making and cities as post-political entities; (3) social inclusion,
expressed in the aspects of citizen participation and inclusion, and inequality and discrimination; and (4)
sustainability, with a specific focus on the environment as an element to protect but also as a strategic
element for the future.
The various factors contributing to power imbalances in design processes include disproportionate
stakeholders’ influence, inadequate representation leading to products that do not meet diverse needs,
disparities in expertise that minimise practical contributions of marginalised communities, information
asymmetry creating understanding gaps [4], hierarchical structures and time constraints undermining
collaboration, corporate influences prioritising profit over communities’ needs, all of which collectively
hinder equitable participation, ultimately undermining smart cities’ aims [5]. This paper aims to
investigate a particular ethical aspect of the smart city paradigm, specifically focusing on social inclusion
(3) as encapsulated by the concept of “co-creation”.
While citizen engagement in smart city processes is complex and varied, it also includes challenges
that existed long before the emergence of the smart city concept. The “problem of citizen participation”
that highlights the need for genuine, empowered engagement of citizens in decision making processes,
moving beyond superficial or tokenistic involvement was elaborated in the seminal work of Sherry
Arnstein in 1969 [6]. The complexities of citizen participation are similarly reflected in the context of
smart cities. Frahm et al. caution that narratives surrounding participation in digital transformations
are not neutral; rather, they are normative and performative framings that advance particular agendas
[7].
The issue of the so-called “pseudo-participation” [8] is particularly pronounced when attempting to
involve marginalised communities in technological innovations in cities. The complexity and layers
of marginalisation require alternative approaches to citizen’s engagement. A potentially relevant
framework for engaging marginalised communities in ethical digital innovation processes in smart
cities is the Design Justice framework, which prioritises community-led innovation and emphasises the
importance of social justice in design processes. Design Justice underscores the significance of continuity,
trust, and closeness with communities, suggesting alliances between designers and community-based
organisations to achieve the best outcomes for the community. Looking for practical integrations of
the framework within technological design processes, we observed that non-profit arts and culture
organisations have a long tradition of working within communities and offer potentially relevant
grounds to build upon. Therefore, this paper seeks to elaborate on whether community-based non-profit
arts and culture organisations can act as stakeholders in Design Justice processes.
The paper is positioned in the intersection of critical social studies, urban studies, public policy
and innovation, cultural policy, and ethical and inclusive design of smart cities, information systems,
and AI. It begins with a semi-structured literature review, focusing on co-creation in smart cities, and
co-creation for marginalised communities (section 2). It then proposes an evaluative framework for
ethical design based on the principles of Design Justice (section 3). The subsequent section discusses
how facets of community-based arts organisations align with the evaluative framework of Design Justice
(section 4), giving some European and international examples of work on an intersection of community,
art and technology. The document concludes with suggestions for further research directions.
2. On Co-Creation
Conventionally, co-creation involves the collaboration of diverse actors from civil society, academia,
policy, and industry to collectively address challenges related to sustainability or innovation [9]. Despite
its historical origins, the concept of "co-creation" extends across various fields involving multiple
stakeholders but lacks clear practical guidelines.
2.1. Facets of Co-Creation
Brandsen and Honingh [10] reflect on the confusion around co-terminology and attempt to make
relevant distinctions between co-production and co-creation. The term “co-production” originates from
the work of a Nobel prize winning economist Ostrom and other economists who positions it in the
public sector, examining the collaboration between public departments and citizens [11]. Furthermore,
the term “co-production” finds its critical meaning in academic contexts, specifically within science and
technology studies (STS) [9]. This notion is recently additionally appropriated by policies of international
organisations to mainstream their innovation agenda [7]. In contrast, “co-creation” initially originated in
the commercial business sector and has only recently become dominant across various fields, including
the public sector.
Whether one asserts that both terms are synonymous, or posits that co-creation serves as a more
comprehensive term encompassing all forms of citizen input in public services, or subscribes to the
perspective that they represent two distinct concepts, in practical application, these terms are often
used interchangeably.
Furthermore, the two mentioned terms represent only a subset of concepts indicating similar practices,
including “collaborative governance”, “community involvement”, “participation”, and “civic engagement”
[12]. Voorberg et al. describe attempts to define these terms across various scientific disciplines such as
sociology, economics, political science, public administration, marketing, and management, but also that
interdisciplinarity additionally contributed to their ambiguity. Therefore, when discussing “co-creation”
in the context of smart cities, it is relevant to remain aware of the complexities around co-terminologies
that can lead to misinterpretations among various stakeholders [9].
In urban management, citizen participation is often considered essential, but this concept is as
contested today as it was in 1969 when Sherry Arnstein in her Ladder of Citizen Participation [6], one
of the most widely referenced and influential models in the field of democratic public participation,
argued that any legitimate participation requires the redistribution of power. Citizen participation is
citizen power, argues Arnstein.
Critics have also pointed out that practitioners often struggle to set aside their own preconceived
notions about how a co-creation should look like, often seeing it as inherently positive. Voorberg et
al. [12] argue that co-creation and co-production are often perceived as virtues without the need for
external legitimization through specific evaluation. Mackinnon et al. [13] similarly label co-creation as
an “empty signifier” that can mean anything.
2.2. Co-Creation and the Smart City
Smart cities embody contemporary phenomena where modern technologies—such as IoT and AI,
relying on data, sensors, and specialised algorithms—are positioned as technical fixes for complex urban
challenges, and expected to improve citizens’ quality of life [14]. Governments all over the world are
aiming to adopt a ‘smart city’ paradigm relying on a belief in technological solutions [15] as a means to
address and optimise various urban governance challenges. Discourse of futurism, connectivity and
active citizenship is elevated through the top-down management approach of smart city agendas [16].
Because of this elevation, smart cities are becoming an emerging domain of study [17]. Being both a
theoretical and practical concept, there is no consensus on a definition of a smart city [18].
However, the scope of citizen engagement in these projects is often limited. Cardullo and Kitchin
argue that in many cases, citizen-focused projects often only concern inputs related to predetermined
solutions [19]. Additionally, authors are addressing the critique that smart cities are overly state- and
market-centric, rather than citizen-centric [20].
Despite growing criticism of techno-optimistic narratives [21], the political imagination is still
dominated by claims that technical solutions can be uniformly applied to complex social problems [22].
Smart urbanism remains rooted in pragmatic, instrumental and top-down discourses and practices [19].
However, many authors call for a deep and meaningful grounding of smart initiatives within existing
spatial and social contexts, shaping place as a whole [23]. Cardullo and Kitchin argue that if smart cities
are to become truly ‘citizen-focused’, an alternative conception of smart citizenship is needed, one that
enables an effective shift of power and ideals beyond the market [19].
To foster genuine participation, traditional top-down governance systems in smart cities should be re-
evaluated by focusing on context-specific knowledge and experience from local actors and communities
[24], a "bottom-up" approach that draws on social justice thinking. Some authors expand beyond the
dichotomous top-down/bottom-up view by exploring two intermediary groups that are not neatly
classified as either top-down or bottom-up. The first group, positioned between the top and bottom
of the smart city hierarchy, includes community associations, non-profit organisations, and ad-hoc
task groups. The second group comprises entities with diverse digital practices, whose experiences of
marginalisation influence the articulation and pursuit of digital systems [25]. In these two groups, we see
the potential for active involvement of community-based art protagonists in technology transformation,
as presented in section 4.
Although smart cities have been extensively studied, there has been an imbalance in the attention
given to physical and technological aspects, neglecting considerations of social justice and democratic
principles [19]. To fill this gap, several authors recently suggested new concepts such as “societal smart
city” [26], “alternative smart city” [27], “insurgent smart city’ [28], aiming for the “right to the city”
[29] to all its inhabitants, or propose moving beyond smart city discourse focusing on broader questions
of urban justice in a digital age [21].
2.3. Co-Creation with Marginalised Communities
As previously noted, the typically low-intensity and varied activities associated with citizen participation
pose challenges for engaging marginalised communities in smart city initiatives [24]. The ability of
marginalised communities to take part in the smart cities processes is additionally hindered by what
goes under the umbrella term “digital divide” [30], as well as other relevant dimensions such as linguistic
divide, socio-economic divide, representation imbalance, etc. To properly deal with these phenomena,
practitioners of co-creation are obliged to step forward beyond the traditional “process expertise” [31],
aiming for co-creation practices based on “transformation expertise”, and, for doing so, they need a
critical understanding of social structures that underlie the need for inclusion of marginalised groups
[9]. Paulo Freire, famously observed that critical thought is inseparable from action “upon the world
in order to transform it” [32]. The critical pedagogy perspective proposed by Freire invites us to
understand everyday life from the perspective of those who are the most powerless so that society can
be transformed in the interests of a more humane and just existence for all [32].
The literature frequently talks about marginalisation in connection with inclusion and social exclusion
without providing explicit definitions [33]. Despite ambiguity, ‘marginalisation’ often transforms into
related concepts like disadvantage, discrimination, disempowerment, exclusion, inequality, silencing,
stigmatisation, victimisation, and more [34]. Razer et al. define social exclusion as a state in which
individuals or groups lack effective participation in key activities or benefits of the society in which
they live [35]. Social exclusion involves being marginalised from society, encompassing feelings of
alienation, undervaluation, and incapacity to contribute meaningfully to the community [36]. The
critical smart city scholars therefore argue for developing power-balanced relationships in participatory
design, by exploring new ways of engaging with marginalised communities, focusing on horizontal
processes and the changing role of designers [37].
3. Design Justice
Initiatives aimed at involving marginalised segments of society in digital innovation, along with the
complexities that these processes entail, present a significant opportunity to reframe the meaning and
practice of co-creation. This paper introduces the Design Justice framework that aims to challenge
rather than reproduce structural inequalities. It has emerged from a growing community of designers
in various fields who work closely with social movements and community-based organisations around
the world. Design justice connects design to larger struggles for collective liberation and ecological
survival, and provides for this reason a better fit to take a stance for marginalised communities.
3.1. Conceptual Foundations: Intersectionality and Matrix of Domination
Before introducing the full design justice framework, Costanza-Chock defines two concepts borrowed
from Black Feminist and Critical Race Theory scholars, namely intersectionality and matrix of domination
[38]. The idea of intersectionality laid the foundation for a gradual and ongoing paradigm shift in
the social sciences, legal scholarship, and other research and practice areas. This shift is now making
its impact on different design domains, including computational-oriented literature. Closely linked
to intersectionality, the matrix of domination is a term developed by Black feminist scholar Patricia
Hill Collins to refer to race, class, and gender as interlocking systems of oppression, rather than each
operating ‘on its own.’ Collins explains that “people experience and resist oppression on three levels:
the level of personal biography; the group or community level of the cultural context created by race,
class, and gender; and the systemic level of social institutions” [39].
Although prior design paradigms have sought to centre on users and communities, none have the
explicit attention towards intersectional equity in the way that design justice does [40]. Authors as
Broto et al. [41] outline the significance of adopting intersectionality lens to ensure that innovation
initiatives within marginalised communities do not transform into exploitative endeavours, potentially
overlooking crucial urban, civic, and political matters [13].
Design justice principles1 unfolds as follows in Table 1:
Table 1
Design justice principles, adapted from [42].
Design Justice Principles
Principle 1 We use design to sustain, heal, and empower our communities, as well as to seek liberation
from exploitative and oppressive systems.
Principle 2 We center the voices of those who are directly impacted by the outcomes of the design
process.
Principle 3 We prioritise design’s impact on the community over the intentions of the designer.
Principle 4 We view change as emergent from an accountable, accessible, and collaborative process,
rather than as a point at the end of a process.
Principle 5 We see the role of the designer as a facilitator rather than an expert.
Principle 6 We believe that everyone is an expert based on their own lived experience, and that we all
have unique and brilliant contributions to bring to a design process.
Principle 7 We share design knowledge and tools with our communities.
Principle 8 We work towards sustainable, community-led and controlled outcomes.
Principle 9 We work towards non-exploitative solutions that reconnect us to the earth and to each
other.
Principle 10 Before seeking new design solutions, we look for what is already working at the community
level. We honor and uplift traditional, indigenous, and local knowledge and practices.
1
See e.g. Design Justice Network Principles: https://designjustice.org/read-the-principles
3.2. Reconsidering Co-Creation from a Design Justice Perspective
In order to genuinely collaborate with marginalised communities in smart city and digital innovation
contexts, we suggest applying the Design Justice framework. At a higher abstraction level, we can
reframe any design effort through a general three-level stratification of action: behaviour (how), outcome
(what), and motivation (why). Outcome and motivation can be distinguished as being concerned either
by direct objectives (what), or by preferences, constraints and values (why) which define against what
objectives take shape and are realised through the how. Yet, there is a preliminary dimension to take
into account: who plays a role in the design process, particularly relevant in the case of co-creation. In
technology-oriented approaches as the ones used within contemporary smart city design practices, the
outcome (what) gets most of the attention, as development is centered around (envisioned) solutions.
To guarantee a more holistic approach, it is therefore important to recover the neglected dimensions.
To operationalise the design justice framework in this conceptualisation, we integrate the previously
mentioned ten principles of Design Justice with inquiries regarding who is engaged in the design process
(who), the rationale behind the design (why), and the methodologies (how) through which design justice
can be implemented in collaboration with marginalised communities. The perspectives of marginalised
communities must be represented in all three facets of design justice, as illustrated in Table 2.
4. Community-based Arts Organisations
To highlight the importance of civil society initiatives in co-creation efforts within smart cities, we
will elaborate on a specific subgroup: community-based arts organisations. Here, the importance of
arts and culture for the communities as well as the features of community-based arts organisations are
outlined using a semi-structured literature review to assess their capacities in relation to the Design
Justice framework shown in Table 2.
4.1. On the Role of Community Arts and Culture
Being historically a foundational element in movements for protest and equity globally, encompassing
diverse forms of creative expression such as music, theatre, poetry, and visual arts, art is playing a vital
role in conveying emotions, communicating complex ideas, but also in motivating action to challenge
perceived impossibilities, for instance in addressing issues of racism and the experiences of privilege
and oppression [44].
Arts management scholars engaged in the discussion about the societal character of arts, elaborating
it with the following arguments: (1) arts generate meanings, (2) arts constitute individual and collective
identities and (3) arts is inseparable from other social activities (see e.g. [45]).
Community based arts provide opportunities to revitalise and rethink the social sphere by reflecting
on and embracing inclusive approaches [46]. Furthermore, “community-based art is as much about the
process of involving people in the making of the work as the finished object itself” [47]. Relational
focus on people and processes in working practices enables the community arts sector to act as an
inclusive space for all [46].
According Romig [48], art-based community building has the capacity to establish sustainable bonds,
friendships, and trust within communities, enhancing their ability to imagine and implement solutions
that address the diverse community needs. In his influential work Use or Ornament? The Social Impact
of Participation in the Arts, François Matarasso claims that arts-based projects have credentials as tools
for social renewal [49].
Despite wide recognition of the social character of the community-based arts, one should not forget
that increased emphasis of the social impact of community arts frames public funding as an “investment”
with the expectation of reducing social exclusion in underprivileged regions [50]. This is not guaranteed.
Furthermore, it is important to recognize the critique of so-called “culture-led urbanisation” since
its policies often fail to meet initial expectations and result in negative impacts like gentrification,
labour market disparities and the commercialization of creativity and heritage assets. Considering
Table 2
A preliminary set of critical questions to evaluate the inclusivity of co-creation engaging with marginalised
communities, based on the Design Justice framework [42, 43].
WHY (purpose, vision and values embedded in the design effort)
Does the design have a social and equitable mission?
Is it intended to improve social outcomes and correct systemic inequities?
Does the design include a commitment to accountability to the communities?
Is it designed by community members and does it include a sustainability component?
Does the design have an environmental component to not only mitigate adverse impacts but nurture positive
outcomes?
Does the design include a social, human rights, gender, or environmental impact assessment?
Does the design include recognition of past work on the topic with an emphasis on locally generated, indigenous
knowledge, and practice?
Does the design include a literature review, systematic review, interviews with local knowledge bearers, etc.?
WHO (actors, allies, and advocates embedded in the design effort)
Who is conducting the design and how do they impact the work?
What are the roles and responsibilities of the designer or other team members?
Is the design process co-designed or co-implemented with the community in question?
Are we adequately listening to and capturing all perspectives from the project team and the studied community?
Does the designer approach the design process, not as an expert, but as a facilitator who does not have the
full knowledge of the community in question?
Does the design recognize the blind spots of the designer?
Does the design place value on the contributions of the team participants or communities as experts of their
own experiences?
Does the design allow for co-design, adaptation, or any way for participants to contribute to the research
process?
HOW (practices, processes conducting the design effort)
Is there acknowledgment that the design both in its process and findings can have long-term effects on
participants?
Is the design centering their voices?
Is the design’s impact on the community prioritised over the design’s intentions?
Could there be unintended outcomes?
What is the meaning of free, prior, and informed consent in this context?
Is there a commitment and series of actions that ensure that a design process is transparent, collaborative,
and social change-oriented?
Is the design process evaluated continuously and iterated for increased accessibility, accountability, and
collaboration?
Is there a mechanism for training and knowledge sharing with the communities that are being studied?
Does the design process include a component in which we report back to the communities and ensure that it
is a productive and constructive process for everyone involved?
these challenges, it is important to understand if culture and creativity can sustainably drive smart city
initiatives without long-term adverse effects [51].
4.2. Community-based Arts Organisations in the Design Justice Framework: the
Why/Who/How Dimensions
In principle, community-based arts organisations have the potential to engage significantly in the
realm of why, by fostering discussions around the purpose, vision, and values embedded in design
projects. They could ensure that designs embody a social and equitable mission, aiming to enhance
social outcomes and to address systemic inequalities. These organisations can convey the needs of
marginalised communities through more effective messages, and uphold the responsibility of design to
the community. Drawing on their experiences and locally generated knowledge, community-based arts
organisations can bring valuable insights to the table. Because the proposed critical questions cover all
these aspects, they can guide these organisations to explicitly embrace their social intermediary role.
With respect to the who aspect, these organisations can become crucial partners in design initiatives,
ensuring that designers actively listen to and include all perspectives from the community. Being socially
engaged, community arts practices also include affirmation, support, kindness, respect, friendship,
and fun, caring for others and intentionally fostering inclusive spaces. When a dominant framework
suggests attitudes as self-management and competition, these practices offer an alternative register of
contestation [46]. Community arts practices address power imbalances inherent in design processes,
emphasising that designers should act as facilitators rather than experts, contributing to a more inclusive
design.
Lastly, in the how segment of the Design Justice framework, community-based arts organisations
can facilitate design processes with marginalised communities using various artistic tools and methods
(e.g. Theatre of the Oppressed method, see next section). They could create spaces for reflection and
evaluation throughout the design journey, informing the community and broader audience about the
design process and outcomes. Borwick claims that the successes of today’s non-profit arts and cultural
organisations depend on their capacity to represent the interests of and actively involve a wider portion
of the community [52]. Acting as advocates for design justice practices in the technological domain,
these organisations could play a vital role in promoting more ethical design.
4.3. How Art and Culture Can Transform Technology Design
By fostering critical reflection, enhancing awareness of datafication and promoting inclusive practices,
art cultivates trust and accountability, positioning communities as sources of knowledge that are able to
radically re-imagine society instead of merely assisting in particular kind of democracy in the service
of innovation [7]. Art has the capacity to resonate deeply with individuals, leaving lasting impressions.
In the following section, we will review a number of illustrative examples.
JUST-AI2 fosters a range of creative projects, including science fiction writing that explores themes
related to AI ethics. Writing fiction enables de-centring expected hierarchies in technology development,
and enhances capacities for empathy. Viola van Alphen3 , an activist and a writer from Eindhoven,
highlights that artists play a crucial role in simplifying complex issues related to datafication and making
them more comprehensible.
Art can increase awareness of algorithmic surveillance by promoting public reflection on the impact
of data-driven technologies, thereby fostering critical literacies in urban communities, as exemplified by
artists like Pip Thornton [53]. Additionally, many artistic collectives and artists have created politically
aware and aesthetically innovative works under the umbrella of "surveillance art" [54].
Arts initiatives could become important advocates for community collaboration in design justice.
Furtherfield4 , an arts-based collective from London, advocates for inclusivity and equity in art and
technology to promote social change, while opening access to these fields for collective action and
creative collaborations between artists and communities. Digital Civil Society5 in Germany, initiated
by SUPERRR Lab6 , a Berlin-based feminist community and advocacy organisation, gathered over 80
organisations to advocate for the more active role of civil society in digitisation policies in Germany
claiming that digital transformation is not a purely technical concern, but first and foremost a social
issue7 .
Furthermore, highlighting the experiences of digital oppression, new forms of activism are developed
that actively resist data-driven systems and reject commercial digital infrastructures. Notable examples
are projects such as the Algorithmic Justice League8 which explores the harms and biases of artificial
2
https://www.just-ai.net
3
https://spui25.nl/bio/viola-van-alphen
4
https://www.furtherfield.org
5
https://digitalezivilgesellschaft.org
6
https://superrr.net
7
https://superrr.net/project/digitalcivilsociety
8
https://www.ajl.org
intelligence, and Our Data Bodies9 , a grassroots research project that works with local communities
aiming to develop critical public literacies around algorithmic systems [55].
Community-based arts organisations could act as intermediaries between tech companies, govern-
ments, and grassroots initiatives in the city. WORM10 is an independent and innovative arts venue in
Rotterdam that fosters a network of global partnerships and acts as a primary contact for grassroots
organisations. Many other art spaces from the Netherlands such as OT30111 , W13912 or Framer Framed13
that cultivate strong links with diverse marginalised communities could be relevant in the same context.
One of the powers of the arts is in the ability to recreate and shift negative narratives of marginalisation
and initiate action. Take Back The Tech!14 is a mobilisation initiative aimed at encouraging everyone to
assert control over technology to combat digital violence against women.
Art could challenge the present and reimagine new collective technological infrastructures. Varia15 ,
an artistic initiative in Rotterdam, fosters collective critical approaches to everyday technology, while
facilitating a collective infrastructure for questions, opinions, support, and action. In Chile, Radical
Data16 , a collective of mathematicians, technologists, dancers and designers aims to redefine technology
as a tool for communities, emphasising collaborative resistance and reclaiming of agency in the digital
era.
Two examples based on the Theatre of the Oppressed (TO) methodology additionally illustrate how
community arts practices could address power imbalances in design processes and function as tools for
critical digital pedagogy and co-creation.
Developed by Brazilian theatre director and political activist Augusto Boal in the 1960s, TO is a
humanist theatrical methodology rooted in the philosophy of Paulo Freire’s “pedagogy of the oppressed”
[56]. TO serves as a powerful tool for raising awareness about systemic inequalities and injustices,
breaking down the barriers between audience and performers by inviting participants to engage as
“spect-actors" rather than mere spectators. This participatory approach encourages individuals to move
from passive acceptance of oppression to active resistance against various forms of injustice, including
those related to class, race, and gender. TO employs aesthetic elements [57] such as words, sounds, and
images to stimulate self-representation, raise self-esteem, and facilitate meaningful dialogue for social
transformation.
“Data theatre”, rooted in the tradition of Freire and Boal, is developed as an educational tool that
offers an alternate entryway to building critical data literacy, particularly for learners with limited
access to technology [58]. Likewise, a theatre group collaborating with Creativity and Change at
Munster Technological University (MTU) investigates local and global implications of social media
engagement-based algorithms under the mentorship of Brazilian theatre practitioner Julian Boal (son of
Augusto). This collaboration emphasises the need for algorithmic awareness and demonstrates how TO
can facilitate engagement with complex issues, revealing and challenging invisible power structures in
technology development [59].
5. Conclusions
After reviewing relevant knowledge and engaging with critical analysis and evaluation (drawing from
scholarly literature) of the concept of co-creation across all relevant dimensions in smart cities (section 2),
the paper introduces an initial version of an evaluative framework for more inclusive co-creation shaped
from a Design Justice perspective (section 3). This has been chosen as an instance of operationalisation
attuned to the characteristics of marginalised communities, as specifically captured by Design Justice
9
https://www.odbproject.org
10
https://worm.org/about/worm-pirate-bay
11
https://www.ot301.nl
12
https://w139.nl/
13
https://framerframed.nl/
14
https://www.takebackthetech.net
15
https://varia.zone/en
16
https://radicaldata.org
concepts as intersectionality and the matrix of domination. While smart city initiatives highlight co-
creation in their projects, they employed specific top-down approaches led mostly by tech parties in the
context of a market-driven rationale [20]. In contrast, a design justice approach emphasises community-
led practices that empower marginalised communities. However, to take its full implementation, the
design justice approach needs allies among both technology design practitioners and those engaged
in social and political advocacy. The paper therefore analyses (section 4) facets of community-based
non-profit arts organisations to become partners in the implementation of the design justice movement.
Finally, the paper suggests that community-based non-profit arts organisations can play a vital role in
these initiatives due to their intrinsic strengths, including sustained community involvement, inclusivity,
advocacy for marginalised groups, and the meaningful articulation of community needs and positions
through arts methods. The paper presents illustrative examples demonstrating how community-based
art could transform and re-imagine technology by fostering critical reflection, facilitating empathy,
altering narratives for marginalised communities, enhancing visibility and awareness of datafication,
creating alternative pathways for critical digital literacy and addressing invisible power structures. Art
tools and methods used by various initiatives could be employed in meaningful co-creation processes
with communities. Reflecting on the knowledge from community-based arts organisations about
empathy, empowerment and accountability could be of great importance in framing more just societies
in the digital era. Through their public activities, art and culture could facilitate extensive debates,
thereby enhancing transparency in the processes of societal technological transformation. Cities bear
a significant responsibility to ensure the active participation of informed civil society stakeholders
in technological innovation initiatives, thereby guaranteeing adherence to legislative requirements.
This requires proactively identifying civil society actors and investing in their capacities to maintain
long-term transparency and accountability in the digital transformation process. To encourage systemic
involvement of arts and culture organisations closely connected to marginalised communities in the
areas of digital transformation and smart cities, further research is needed on possible new policy
initiatives and funding frameworks.
Acknowledgments
This work has been supported by the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 101070325 (Innovative Solutions Responding to the Needs of
Cities & Communities [CommuniCity], 2022).
Declaration on Generative AI
During the preparation of this work, the authors used generative AI tools in order to perform Grammar
and spelling check in some portions of the text. After using these tools, the authors reviewed and edited
the content as needed and take full responsibility for the publication’s content.
References
[1] T. Yigitcanlar, L. Butler, E. Windle, K. C. Desouza, R. Mehmood, J. M. Corchado, Can building
“artificially intelligent cities” safeguard humanity from natural disasters, pandemics, and other
catastrophes? an urban scholar’s perspective, Sensors 20 (2020). doi:10.3390/s20102988.
[2] E. Ismagilova, L. Hughes, Y. K. Dwivedi, K. R. Raman, Smart cities: Advances in research—an
information systems perspective, International Journal of Information Management 47 (2019)
88–100. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.004.
[3] M. Ziosi, B. Hewitt, P. Juneja, M. Taddeo, L. Floridi, Smart cities: reviewing the debate about their
ethical implications, AI & SOCIETY 39 (2024) 1185–1200. doi:10.1007/s00146-022-01558-0.
[4] T. Volkmann, M. Dresel, N. Jochems, Balancing power relations in participatory design: The
importance of initiative and external factors, in: Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA ’23, Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA, 2023. doi:10.1145/3544549.3585864.
[5] H. T. Nguyen, P. Marques, P. Benneworth, Living labs: Challenging and changing the smart city
power relations?, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 183 (2022) 121866. doi:https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121866.
[6] S. R. Arnstein, A ladder of citizen participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35
(1969) 216–224. doi:10.1080/01944366908977225.
[7] N. Frahm, T. Doezema, S. Pfotenhauer, Fixing technology with society: The coproduction of
democratic deficits and responsible innovation at the oecd and the european commission, Science,
Technology, & Human Values 47 (2022) 174–216. doi:10.1177/0162243921999100.
[8] F. Delgado, S. Yang, M. Madaio, Q. Yang, The participatory turn in ai design: Theoretical foundations
and the current state of practice, in: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and
Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization, EAAMO ’23, Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2023. doi:10.1145/3617694.3623261.
[9] J. Herberg, The critique of co-creation: Democratic dialogue or displaced politics?, in: F. Kluge (Ed.),
Transdisciplinarity: A Research Mode for Real-World Problems, Population Europe Secretariat,
2022.
[10] T. Brandsen, M. Honingh, Definitions of co-production and co-creation, in: T. Brandsen, B. Ver-
schuere, T. Steen (Eds.), Co-production and co-creation. Engaging Citizens in Public Services,
Routledge, 2018, pp. 9–17.
[11] E. Ostrom, Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development, World Develop-
ment 24 (1996) 1073–1087. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X.
[12] W. H. Voorberg, V. J. J. M. Bekkers, L. G. Tummers, A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and
Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey, Public Management Review 17 (2015)
1333–1357. doi:10.1080/14719037.2014.930505.
[13] D. Mackinnon, R. Burns, V. Fast, Digital (In)justice in the Smart City, Technoscience and Society,
University of Toronto Press, 2023.
[14] T. Nam, T. A. Pardo, Smart city as urban innovation: focusing on management, policy, and
context, in: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic
Governance, ICEGOV ’11, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2011, p.
185–194. doi:10.1145/2072069.2072100.
[15] R. Kitchin, The real-time city? big data and smart urbanism, GeoJournal 79 (2014) 1–14.
[16] S. Zaman, C. Hertweck, Methods for Uncovering Discourses That Shape the Urban Imaginary in
Helsinki’s Smart City, Frontiers in Sustainable Cities 4 (2022). doi:10.3389/frsc.2022.796469.
[17] A. Meijer, M. P. R. Bolívar, Governing the smart city: a review of the literature on smart urban
governance, International Review of Administrative Sciences 82 (2016) 392–408. doi:10.1177/
0020852314564308.
[18] R. B. Luca Mora, M. Deakin, The First Two Decades of Smart-City Research: A Bibliometric
Analysis, Journal of Urban Technology 24 (2017) 3–27. doi:10.1080/10630732.2017.1285123.
[19] P. Cardullo, R. Kitchin, Smart urbanism and smart citizenship: The neoliberal logic of ‘citizen-
focused’ smart cities in Europe, Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 37 (2019) 813–830.
doi:10.1177/0263774X18806508.
[20] R. Kitchin, Making sense of smart cities: addressing present shortcomings, Cambridge Journal of
Regions, Economy and Society 8 (2014) 131–136. doi:10.1093/cjres/rsu027.
[21] M. Rosol, G. Blue, From the smart city to urban justice in a digital age, City 26 (2022) 684–705.
doi:10.1080/13604813.2022.2079881.
[22] P. Cardullo, R. Kitchin, Being a ‘citizen’ in the smart city: up and down the scaffold of smart
citizen participation in dublin, ireland, GeoJournal 84 (2019) 1–13. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10708-018-9845-8. doi:10.1007/s10708-018-9845-8.
[23] N. Odendaal, Disrupted Urbanism: Situated Smart Initiatives in African Cities, 1 ed., Bristol
University Press, 2023.
[24] H. Smith, G. M. Medero, S. Crane De Narváez, W. Castro Mera, Exploring the relevance of ‘smart
city’approaches to low-income communities in medellín, colombia, GeoJournal 88 (2023) 17–38.
[25] R. Burns, P. Welker, Interstitiality in the smart city: More than top-down and bottom-up smartness,
Urban Studies 60 (2023) 308–324. doi:10.1177/00420980221097590.
[26] H. Alizadeh, A. Sharifi, Toward a societal smart city: Clarifying the social justice dimension of
smart cities, Sustainable Cities and Society 95 (2023) 104612. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scs.2023.104612.
[27] N. Vadiati, Alternatives to smart cities: A call for consideration of grassroots digital urbanism,
Digital Geography and Society 3 (2022) 100030. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diggeo.
2022.100030.
[28] A. Stokols, The insurgent smart city: How a social movement created an alternative imaginary of
the smart city, Journal of Urban Affairs 0 (2023) 1–18. doi:10.1080/07352166.2023.2216887.
[29] T. K. Reuter, Human rights and the city: Including marginalized communities in urban development
and smart cities, Journal of Human Rights 18 (2019) 382–402. doi:10.1080/14754835.2019.
1629887.
[30] J. A. van Dijk, Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings, Poetics 34 (2006) 221–235.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.004.
[31] G. Molinengo, D. Stasiak, R. Freeth, Process expertise in policy advice: Designing collaboration
in collaboration, Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 8 (2021) 310. doi:10.1057/
s41599-021-00990-9.
[32] P. McLaren, Chapter one: Reflections on paulo freire, critical pedagogy, and the current crisis of
capitalism, Counterpoints 500 (2015) 17–38.
[33] K. Messiou, Collaborating with children in exploring marginalisation: an approach to inclusive
education, International Journal of Inclusive Education 16 (2012) 1311–1322. doi:10.1080/
13603116.2011.572188.
[34] D. Gurnham, Introduction: marginalisation in law, policy and society, International Journal of
Law in Context 18 (2022) 1–9. doi:10.1017/S1744552322000027.
[35] V. J. F. Michal Razer, B. Warshofsky, Schools as agents of social exclusion and inclusion, In-
ternational Journal of Inclusive Education 17 (2013) 1152–1170. doi:10.1080/13603116.2012.
742145.
[36] J. G. Mowat, Towards a new conceptualisation of marginalisation, European Educational Research
Journal 14 (2015) 454–476. doi:10.1177/1474904115589864.
[37] F. Tomasini Giannini, I. Mulder, Towards a power-balanced participatory design process, in:
Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference 2022 - Volume 2, PDC ’22, Association for
Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2022, p. 111–117. doi:10.1145/3537797.3537819.
[38] S. Costanza-Chock, Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need, The
MIT Press, 2020. doi:10.7551/mitpress/12255.001.0001.
[39] P. H. Collins, Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment,
Routledge, 2000.
[40] M. Das, A. K. Ostrowski, S. Ben-David, G. J. Roeder, K. Kimura, C. D’Ignazio, C. Breazeal, A. Verma,
Auditing design justice: The impact of social movements on design pedagogy at a technology
institution, Design Studies 86 (2023) 101183. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2023.
101183.
[41] V. C. Broto, S. N. Alves, Intersectionality challenges for the co-production of urban services: notes
for a theoretical and methodological agenda, Environment and Urbanization 30 (2018) 367–386.
doi:10.1177/0956247818790208.
[42] S. Costanza-Chock, Design justice: Towards an intersectional feminist framework for design
theory and practice, Proceedings of the Design Research Society (2018).
[43] M. M. Hasan, S. Amin, Design justice: Why it matters and how you can apply the princi-
ples to your work, accessed 1 february 2024, 2020. URL: https://archive.researchworld.com/
design-justice-why-it-matters-and-how-you-can-apply-the-principles-to-your-work.
[44] D. M. Griffith, A. R. Semlow, Art, Anti-Racism and health equity: “don’t ask me why, ask me how!”,
Ethn Dis 30 (2020) 373–380.
[45] V. Kirchberg, T. Zembylas, Arts Management: A Sociological Inquiry, The Journal of Arts
Management, Law, and Society 40 (2010) 1–5. doi:10.1080/10632921003641190.
[46] M. Campbell, Reimagining the creative industries in the community arts sector, Cultural Trends
30 (2021) 263–282. doi:10.1080/09548963.2021.1887702.
[47] J. Cohen-Cruz, An introduction to community art and activism, 2002. URL: https://library.upei.ca/
sites/default/files/an_introduction_to_community_art_and_activism_cohen_cruz.pdf.
[48] H. Romig, Arts and social justice: The role of art organizations in building community, International
Development, Community and Environment (IDCE) 207 (2018). URL: https://commons.clarku.edu/
idce_masters_papers/207.
[49] F. Matarasso, Use Or Ornament?: The Social Impact of Participation in the Arts, Social impact of
the arts, Comedia, 1997. URL: https://books.google.hr/books?id=c7CEAAAACAAJ.
[50] E. Belfiore, Art as a means of alleviating social exclusion: Does it really work? A critique of
instrumental cultural policies and social impact studies in the UK, International Journal of Cultural
Policy 8 (2002) 91–106. doi:10.1080/102866302900324658.
[51] E. Casals-Alsina, Can the ‘creative city’ be sustainable? Lessons from the Sant Martí district
(Barcelona), International Journal of Cultural Policy 30 (2024) 511–528. doi:10.1080/10286632.
2023.2222770.
[52] D. Borwick, Building Communities, Not Audiences: The Future of the Arts in the United States,
ArtsEngaged, 2012. URL: https://books.google.it/books?id=Xo1FLgEACAAJ.
[53] P. Thornton, Data resistance through public art: reclaiming narratives in/of the city, in: [60], 2022,
pp. 326–345. doi:doi:10.1515/9781474492973.
[54] E. Morrison, Surveillance society needs performance theory and arts practice, International
Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media 11 (2015) 125–130. doi:10.1080/14794713.2015.
1084812.
[55] M. Currie, Part iv introduction, in: [60], 2022, pp. 249–252. doi:doi:10.1515/9781474492973.
[56] P. Freire, Pedagogy of the oppressed, in: Toward a sociology of education, Routledge, 2020, pp.
374–386.
[57] G. H. Dalaqua, Using art to resist epistemic injustice: The aesthetics of the oppressed and
democratic freedom, Contention 8 (2020) 93–114.
[58] R. Bhargava, A. Brea, V. Palacin, L. Perovich, J. Hinson, Data theatre as an entry point to data
literacy, Educational Technology & Society 25 (2022) 93–108. doi:10.30191/ETS.202210_25(4)
.0008.
[59] S. R. Chriszine Backhouse, C. Barton, Making the invisible visible: How forum theatre can reveal
the impact of social media algorithms on local and global justice issues, Policy & Practice: A
Development Education Review (2023).
[60] C. M. Morgan Currie, Jeremy Knox (Ed.), Data Justice and the Right to the City, Edinburgh
University Press, Edinburgh, 2022. doi:doi:10.1515/9781474492973.