Civic Hackathons: New Terrain for Local Government-Citizen Interaction?

As more and more governments share open data, tech developers respond by creating apps using these data to generate content or provide services that citizens may find useful. More recently, there is an increase in popularity of the civic hackathon. These time-limited events gather tech enthusiasts, government workers and interested citizens, in a collaborative environment to apply government open data in developing software applications that address issues of shared civic importance. Building on the Johnson and Robinson (2014) framework for understanding the civic hackathon phenomenon, Canadian municipal staff with civic hackathon experience were interviewed about their motivations for and benefits derived from participation in these events. Two broad themes emerged from these interviews. First, through the development of prototypical apps using municipal open data and other data sets, civic hackathons help put open data into public use. Second, civic hackathons provide government staff with valuable feedback about municipal open data sets informing and evolving future open data releases. This paper concludes with reflections for urban planners about how civic hackathons might be used in their practice and with recommendations for municipal staff considering using civic hackathons to add value to municipal open data.

[1]  Constructing contemporary artistic identities in Toronto neighbourhoods , 2003 .

[2]  K. Bwalya Understanding e-Government , 2018 .

[3]  Theresa A. Pardo,et al.  Creating Open Government Ecosystems: A Research and Development Agenda , 2012, Future Internet.

[4]  Lyudmila Bershadskaya,et al.  Planning and designing open government data programs: An ecosystem approach , 2016, Gov. Inf. Q..

[5]  Peter A. Johnson,et al.  Civic open data at a crossroads: Dominant models and current challenges , 2015, Gov. Inf. Q..

[6]  Jo Bates,et al.  The strategic importance of information policy for the contemporary neoliberal state: The case of Open Government Data in the United Kingdom , 2014, Gov. Inf. Q..

[7]  Peter A. Johnson Reflecting on the Success of Open Data , 2016, Open Government.

[8]  Peter A. Johnson,et al.  A Web of Expectations: EvolvingRelationships in Community ParticipatoryGeoweb Projects. , 2015 .

[9]  Peter A. Johnson,et al.  Situating the Adoption of VGI by Government , 2013 .

[10]  Peter A. Johnson,et al.  Civic Hackathons: Innovation, Procurement, or Civic Engagement? , 2014 .

[11]  Mete Yildiz,et al.  E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward , 2007, Gov. Inf. Q..

[12]  Marijn Janssen,et al.  Open Data: Growing Up and Getting Specific , 2014 .

[13]  Dietmar Offenhuber Infrastructure legibility—a comparative analysis of open311-based citizen feedback systems , 2015 .

[14]  Peter A. Johnson Models of direct editing of government spatial data: challenges and constraints to the acceptance of contributed data , 2017 .

[15]  M. Brown,et al.  Understanding E-Government Benefits , 2007 .

[16]  Peter Mechant,et al.  Exploring hackathons: civic vs. product innovation hackathons , 2015 .

[17]  M. Janssen,et al.  Infomediary Business Models for Connecting Open Data Providers and Users , 2014 .

[18]  Peter A. Johnson,et al.  Doing Public Participation on the Geospatial Web , 2016 .

[19]  Yannis Charalabidis,et al.  Benefits, Adoption Barriers and Myths of Open Data and Open Government , 2012, Inf. Syst. Manag..

[20]  王靜詩 Open Government Declaration , 2010 .

[21]  Peter A. Johnson,et al.  A Web of Expectations: Evolving Relationships in Community Participatory Geoweb Projects. , 2015 .