IoT Community Technologies: Leaving Users to Their Own Devices or Orchestration of Engagement?

Citizens are increasingly crowdfunding IoT based participatory sensing technologies that allow them to collect and share data about the environment. These initiatives are usually referred to as grassroots and are driven by a vision of widening access to tools for political action. In this paper we compare patterns of participation and user experience over 15 months in two distinct communities using ‘Smart Citizen’, a crowdfunded IoT participatory sensing tool. Our studies reveal that technology issues and a lack of reliability of the sensed data hindered user participation. However, in one of the communities, many of these challenges were overcome through orchestrated actions led by community champions. We discuss how crowdfunding doesn’t necessarily translate into active participation and provide guidelines on how to achieve sustained engagement in crowdfunded IoT community sensing projects: enable distributed orchestration provided by local champions, encourage social interactions that embed skills and learning, and facilitate meaningful participation and reward mechanisms among community members.

[1]  รศ.ดร.ธีรศักดิ์ อุ่นอารมย์เลิศ,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches , 2016 .

[2]  William W. Gaver,et al.  Indoor weather stations: investigating a ludic approach to environmental HCI through batch prototyping , 2013, CHI.

[3]  E Nicholson,et al.  Community data--where does the value lie? Assessing confidence limits of community collected water quality data. , 2002, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[4]  Yang Ishigaki,et al.  Development of Mobile Radiation Monitoring System Utilizing Smartphone and Its Field Tests in Fukushima , 2013, IEEE Sensors Journal.

[5]  Mark D. Gross,et al.  Red balloon, green balloon, sensors in the sky , 2011, UbiComp '11.

[6]  Yasuhito Abe,et al.  Safecast or the Production of Collective Intelligence on Radiation Risks after 3.11 セーフキャスト 3.11後の放射線リスクについて集団知能を生み出す , 2014 .

[7]  Allison Woodruff,et al.  A vehicle for research: using street sweepers to explore the landscape of environmental community action , 2009, CHI.

[8]  Fan Ye,et al.  Mobile crowdsensing: current state and future challenges , 2011, IEEE Communications Magazine.

[9]  Jennifer Preece,et al.  Dynamic changes in motivation in collaborative citizen-science projects , 2012, CSCW.

[10]  Ethan Mollick The Dynamics of Crowdfunding: An Exploratory Study , 2014 .

[11]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  From Conservation to Crowdsourcing: A Typology of Citizen Science , 2011, 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[12]  Patrick Olivier,et al.  Leaving the wild: lessons from community technology handovers , 2013, CHI.

[13]  V. Braun,et al.  Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .

[14]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  Things aren't what they seem to be: innovation through technology inspiration , 2002, DIS '02.

[15]  Steve Benford,et al.  Orchestrating a mixed reality game 'on the ground' , 2004, CHI.

[16]  Armin Schwienbacher,et al.  Crowdfunding: An Industrial Organization Perspective , 2010 .

[17]  Ellie D'Hondt,et al.  Crowdsourcing of Pollution Data using Smartphones , 2010 .

[18]  E. Snyder,et al.  The changing paradigm of air pollution monitoring. , 2013, Environmental science & technology.

[19]  Andreas Wittel,et al.  Ethnography on the Move: From Field to Net to Internet , 2000 .

[20]  Richard H. Kozoll Street science: Community knowledge and environmental health justice , 2006 .

[21]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  Does he take sugar?: moving beyond the rhetoric of compassion , 2013, INTR.

[22]  Tom Rodden,et al.  Doing innovation in the wild , 2013, CHItaly '13.

[23]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  Understanding sustained community engagement: a case study in heritage preservation in rural argentina , 2014, CHI.

[24]  Scott E. Hudson,et al.  Community engagements with living sensing systems , 2013, Creativity & Cognition.

[25]  Elizabeth Gerber,et al.  Understanding the role of community in crowdfunding work , 2014, CSCW.

[26]  Elizabeth Gerber,et al.  Crowdfunding , 2013, ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact..

[27]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches , 2010 .

[28]  O. Nov,et al.  Crowdsourcing for science : understanding and enhancing SciSourcing contribution , 2010 .

[29]  Allison Woodruff,et al.  Common Sense Community: Scaffolding Mobile Sensing and Analysis for Novice Users , 2010, Pervasive.

[30]  Ann Blandford,et al.  Designing for dabblers and deterring drop-outs in citizen science , 2014, CHI.

[31]  Deborah Estrin,et al.  PEIR, the personal environmental impact report, as a platform for participatory sensing systems research , 2009, MobiSys '09.

[32]  Ann Light,et al.  HCI, communities and politics , 2010, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[33]  M. Haklay Citizen Science and Volunteered Geographic Information: Overview and Typology of Participation , 2013 .

[34]  Tomas Diez,et al.  The fab and the smart city: the use of machines and technology for the city production by its citizens , 2013, TEI '13.

[35]  Loren G. Terveen,et al.  Quality is a verb: the operationalization of data quality in a citizen science community , 2011, Int. Sym. Wikis.

[36]  Patrick Jermann,et al.  Classroom orchestration: The third circle of usability , 2011, CSCL.

[37]  Daniel McQuillan,et al.  The Countercultural Potential of Citizen Science , 2014 .

[38]  Eric Paulos,et al.  inAir: measuring and visualizing indoor air quality , 2009, UbiComp.

[39]  Mirco Musolesi,et al.  Urban sensing systems: opportunistic or participatory? , 2008, HotMobile '08.