Data in the smart city: How incongruent frames challenge the transition from ideal to practice
Data in the smart city: How incongruent frames challenge the transition from ideal to practice
复制标题
智慧城市中的数据：不一致的框架如何挑战从理想到实践的转变
DOI：
10.1177/2053951718802321
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
8.5
通讯作者：
A. Madsen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Madsen
本文对哥本哈根市技术管理部门员工在获得著名的智慧城市奖后的一年内进行的访谈、焦点小组和研讨会进行了分析。政府被认为“最有可能”成功地将理想化的智慧城市转化为可行的官僚实践。借鉴 Orlikowski 和 Gash 的工作，实证分析识别并描述了两个不一致的“技术框架”，说明了在这个单一组织单位内理解数据和智慧城市的不同方式。其中一个被称为实验主义者的信条，其特点是从物联网的发展中汲取灵感，并愿意向软件开发的开源社区学习。另一种称为数据所有者职业，其特点是采用更情境化的方法，将数据解释为战略和政治性的。有人认为，这些框架的存在提供了与智慧城市文献相关的两种见解。首先，它们表明人们应该小心，不要将智慧城市具体化为一种可以笼统批评的现象。其次，他们认为，即使公共管理部门存在向实施技术官僚智慧城市范式的转变，但这种范式在关注市场和治理证据方面并不是独一无二的。
This paper presents an analysis of interviews, focus groups and workshops with employees in the technical administration in the municipality of Copenhagen in the year after it won a prestigious Smart City award. The administration is interpreted as a ‘most likely’ to succeed in translating the idealised version of the smart city into a workable bureaucratic practice. Drawing on the work of Orlikowski and Gash, the empirical analysis identifies and describes two incongruent ‘technological frames’ that illustrates different ways of making sense of data and the smart city within this single organisational unit. One is called the experimentalist’s credo and it is characterised by inspiration from the development of an Internet of Things as well as a readiness to learn from the open source community in software development. The other is called the data-owners vocation and it is characterised by a more situated approach that interprets data as strategic and political. It is argued that the existence of these frames provides two insights relevant for the literature on smart cities. First, they illustrate that one should be careful not to reify the smart city as a phenomenon that can be criticised in generic terms. Second, they suggest that even if there exists a transition toward the implementation of a technocratic smart city paradigm across public administrations, this paradigm is not unique in its focus on markets and evidence in governance.