Collective Awareness Platforms for Sustainability and Social Innovation: An Introduction i Foreword In just three decades, the internet has evolved from an experimental tool for researchers to a pervasive, omnipresent backbone for society and the economy. In my eyes its main strength, and unprecedented characteristic, is hyperconnectivity, which is the ability to network people, ideas and data across boundaries of any nature: geographical, cultural, disciplinary, linguistic, social, economic. All of the most innovative ideas, from Skype to Wikipedia, from online cartography to app stores, had a very quick, viral spreading. Their impact was as much game-changing as it was unpredicted just a few months earlier. Indeed, hyperconnectivity opens up a new field where successful ideas have nothing in common but their unpredictable, bottom-up nature and the ability of exploiting network effects at any level. Trying to understand where the next big game changer can emerge, in 2012 we launched a research initiative called Collective Awareness Platforms for Sustainability and Social Innovation (CAPS). The objective was to explore new solutions at the confluence of social networks, knowledge networks and networks of things. It was a broad concept and was very far from the traditional approach to research funding, which normally requires well focussed technological horizons. And its implementation was made possible only thanks to the foresight of Robert Madelin, the Director General of DG CONNECT. Nowadays, the need to reinforce societal resilience and sustainability is becoming more and more pressing. We are therefore launching a new call in this area, in order to stimulate new, bottom-up and grassroots solutions based on new forms of collaboration enabled by the internet. I like to think that a book sprint is a very good example of how people can collaborate in innovative ways for the common good, for sharing knowledge especially with newcomers to fast growing fields such as CAPS. In other words, a way of 'walking the talk' in the broad area of social innovation, for which I warmly thank all the colleagues who co-authored this publication in a few intense days of work. I trust that you will find this book as refreshing, concise and stimulating as I did, and I encourage you to contribute to further revisions not only by writing but also by doing, in the framework of the many new initiatives that are being launched in these days. Fabrizio Sestini, Scientific Officer, European Commission’s DG CONNECT 4 Table of Contents 1 Foreword i 1. Introduction 2 About this Book 4 Structure of the Book 7 2. Framing CAPS 8 What is CAPS? 9 Research Challenges 15 3. Overview of the First CAPS Projects 20 Introduction to the First Round of Funded CAPS Projects 21 Goals and Challenges 23 CAPS Stakeholders and End Users 24 Synergies between Projects 28 Collective Awareness Platforms 31 4. Starting Out 46 Societal Challenges 47 Framing the Challenges 48 Engaging Communities of Interest 49 Empowerment 51 5. Strategies 54 Strategies for Promoting Engagement 55 Barriers in Attempting to Manage Problem Situations 56 Establishing and Facilitating the Dialogue 58 Elicitation of Requirements 59 Evaluation and Holistic Assessment 62 6. Conclusion 66 7. References 70 2 1. Introduction 3 — Authors in Alphabetical Order Marta Arniani Prof. Atta Badii Dr. Anna De Liddo Silke Georgi Dr. Antonella Passani Lara S. G. Piccolo Dr. Maurizio Teli How to cite this work: Arniani, M., Badii, A., De Liddo, A., Georgi, S., Passani, A., Piccolo, L.S.G., & Teli, M., 2014: Collective Awareness Platform for Sustainability and Social Innovation: An Introduction. This book is licenced under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike. 4 About this Book This book was written in three days during a Book Sprint collaborative writing session, from May 5 to May 7, 2014, in Nice, France. This session was executed within the framework of the BS4ICTRSRCH - Book Sprints for ICT Research project in cooperation with CAPS2020, coordinated by Sigma Orionis. The Book Sprint was facilitated by Barbara Rühling of BookSprints.net. Layout and Design: Henrik van Leeuwen Proofreader: Rachel Somers Miles BS4ICTRSRCH Book Sprints for ICT Research, Support Action project is funded by the European Commission under the FP7-ICT Work Programme 2013. Project number: 323988. http://booksprints-for-ict-research.eu FLOSS Manuals Foundation FLOSS Manuals creates free documentation about free software. It is an online community of some 4-5 thousand volunteers creating manuals in over 30 languages. http://www.flossmanuals.org Book Sprints Book Sprints is a rapid development methodology for producing books in 3-5 days. The methodology was founded by Adam Hyde of BookSprints.net. http://www.booksprints.net CAPS2020 CAPS2020 is funded by the European Commission under the FP7-ICT Work Programme 2013. Project number: 611973. http://caps2020.eu http://caps-conference.eu Sigma Orionis Sigma Orionis is the coordinator of CAPS2020 Coordination and Support Action and CATALYST project. Since its creation in 1984, Sigma Orionis has strived to make an effective contribution to a stronger 'research - innovation - market' process through its research activities, its studies and its consultancy services. http://sigma-orionis.com 5 — Authors in Alphabetical Order Marta Arniani is Project Manager in Sigma Orionis’ projects addressing Collective Awareness Platforms for Sustainability and Social Innovation (CAPS2020, CATALYST) ICT and Art/Creative Industries connection (FET-ART, CRe-AM). Previously she worked as a journalist and social media manager. Marta graduated in philosophy, studying contemporary aesthetics and politics in the urban context, and also ran the Rossopane grassroots association from 2005 to 2011. Prof. Atta Badii is a high-ranking professor at the University of Reading where he is Director of the Intelligent Systems Research Laboratory, at the School of Systems Engineering. He holds the Chair of Secure Pervasive Technologies (UoR) and the designation of Distinguished Professor of Systems Engineering and Digital Innovation (UCC) and is an International Privacy-by-Design Ambassador as designated by the Canadian Information and Privacy Commission. Atta is Director of the European Virtual Centre of Excellence for Ethically-guided and Privacy-respecting Video Analytics (VideoSense) and Coordinator of SciCafe 2.0 - the European Observatory for Crowd-Sourcing. Dr. Anna De Liddo is Research Associate at the Knowledge Media Institute of The Open University (UK). Her research focuses on the socio-technical factors influencing the design and uptake of online deliberation and collective intelligence (CI) infrastructures for social awareness and citizen engagement in policy and decision-making. At present Anna is leading Open University’s work in the European Project CATALYST, and the EPSRC’s EDV project, which aims at developing augmented video replays of the 2015 UK Election Televised debate, in order to improve citizen engagement in policy making. Silke Georgi has a background in political science and law in Germany, the United States and the Netherlands. She is responsible for International Affairs at SOZIALHELDEN e.V., a Berlin-based non-profit organisation that creates innovative social projects, including Wheelmap.org, an online, crowdsourced map for finding wheelchair accessible places worldwide. Dr. Antonella Passani is a sociologist with a cultural anthropology background. She has been involved in ICT European projects for the last ten years investigating technology as an enabler for socio-economic and cultural change. She is experienced in working in interdisciplinary environments and, within the CAPS community, is the scientific coordinator of the support action IA4SI—Impact Assessment for Social Innovation. She coordinates the Innovation, Society and Social Capital research unit at T6 Ecosystems, a research SME based in Rome, Italy. Lara Schibelsky Godoy Piccolo is a human-computer interaction researcher at the Knowledge Media Institute of The Open University. Her research is focused on engagement and motivational aspects in DecarboNet. She is a computer engineer and PhD candidate, with an MA in Computer Science at UNICAMP, Brazil. Previously, she was Senior Researcher at CPqD in Brazil coordinating R&D projects related to the digital divide. 6 Dr. Maurizio Teli has recently been appointed as Research Fellow at the Department of Information Engineering and Computer Science of the University of Trento (Italy). As a sociologist who has always worked in interdisciplinary environments, he focuses on commons-oriented technologies as a field for the interdisciplinary development of socio- technical dialogue. When working at the Action 53 54 5. Strategies 55 Strategies for Promoting Engagement In order for the CAPS projects to be able to provide sustainable solutions, it is important that enough members of the communities of interest stay engaged in the collective platforms for a significant period of time. This means that ways must be found to keep people interested so they will want to keep coming back. Unsuccessful experiences, for example, of exploring the potential of social media to reach a goal are not rare: the difference between 'reach' and 'engagement' is substantial when we look at the impact of an initiative (be it a commercial or a political one) using the web as a principal channel. Providing an adequate tool is definitely an important step, but engaging people to actually adopt the tool has been a constant concern even for governments and policy makers. It is not always necessary to invent the wheel anew. By looking at tools, methods and strategies of engagement that are working, or have worked in the past, a great deal can be learned for the development of an engagement initiative. However, there is no ready-made solution for this. It will be necessary to offer different strategies of engagement that are attractive for different kinds of people. What motivates people to be engaged differs according to sociocultural aspects, age, research context, etc. Various behavioural studies from psychology and social science have been carried out to understand this dynamic. For some people a motivational factor may be the sense of community that they experience by working towards a common goal with other like-minded people. For others, being engaged in a cause that is personally important to them will be significant. In the case of the CAPS projects, the goal, however, is to also reach a wider audience including those who may not be so intrinsically motivated at the outset. They may, for instance, find a gaming aspect of the tools provided to be appealing. The impact of gamification, competition, collaborative work, public and even tangible feedback are examples of strategies that have been evaluated to promote engagement and consequently bring about a change in behaviour (Piccolo et al., 2013). The feeling of participating in something that is cool and innovative, for example, can be a powerful motivator, especially for a younger, internet savvy audience. The broad range of computer games and apps that appeal to the users of internet devices are a valuable resource for understanding what motivates a large segment of the population. Social media channels and blogs are also very powerful tools for engaging communities of interest over a longer period of time, and will play an important role in the engagement plans of the CAPS projects. 56 Barriers in Attempting to Manage Problem Situations As societal challenges emerge and collective solutions are needed, there are elements of human knowledge construction practices that participate in the achievement of collective construction. In this chapter, we address some of these in relation to human judgement and decision-making. The starting point is that human judgment is related to inevitable memory recalls (Badii 2000, 2008). This essentially means that human memory is not a continuous recording of all experiences and their effects at the time of their occurrence. In fact, human memory privileges certain aspects of experiences at recall. This means specific salient experiences at particular epochs in the course of serial experiences are better remembered than others, including experiences of pleasure and pain. This means we are particularly susceptible to the influence of duration, sequence and timing, and the relative severity of exposure to adverse or desirable effects when we remember things. This selective memorability of certain facts can influence human judgment about related issues at a later date. Our lived experience is an artefact of our recallable memory to-date. This in turn influences our interpretation of the salience of certain events and thus their memorability. In this way the cumulative effect of our memory over our lifetime results in an increased subjectivity in our interpretation of phenomena in our environment and of problem situations in particular. It follows that human judgment and decision-making differ among humans depending on their memory of the effects of a problem situation. When involving stakeholders in a CAPS initiative, this element mixed with others (practical arrangements, power situations, etc.) could make it difficult for stakeholders themselves to articulate their feelings and preferences consistently, or completely and accurately. Such articulation is deeply connected to value judgments and value languages, as the collective lived experience of a community, its cultural history and shared values, are reflected in the metaphors, idiomatic expressions and clichés that characterise the value language the members of the community use in their expressions of problem solutions. Such language can tacitly or explicitly encode feelings of uneasiness that can be related to a problem situation. Each community of interest has its own evolving (sub-)language which at least in part encodes their value system, their personal and community of interest constructs, and their patterns of seeing, believing and relating to the self and to others. One understands and appreciates the values of a community of interest through their expressions and their (sub-)language by which they refer to their needs, and privilege their aspirations. Understanding the value language of the involved parties is thus a prerequisite to establishing shared meaning and finding possible solutions to the problem situation. Moreover, a facilitator has to focus on the expressions of the involved individuals so as to elicit their interpretation of the problem situation and their needs and wants. However, as 57 the involved parties will provide a variety of subjective accounts of reality, multiple realties and incongruent meanings can result from the initial stage of the definition of a problem situation. The conflicts and ambiguities in the interpretations of the parties involved is a source of complexity which needs to be framed and tamed in order for sense-making to become possible. In fact, as everyone sees things in their own way, the prisms of culture and personal constructs shape the involved parties’ particular patterns of seeing and modes of belief of what constitutes their own reality. Accordingly, involved parties can make assumptions on cause and effect, the roots of the problem situation, and who or what is responsible for what. Such perceived assumptions are historical facts, and are one of the definitions of terms like ambiguity, and one of the origins of conflicts. — Solving Ambiguity and Conflicts Problem situations on a global scale, which the world as a whole is confronted with, such as pollution and global warming, environmental sustainability, energy and food security, antibiotic resistance against new mutations of pathogens, and cyber and physical security protection against terrorism, etc. tend to exhibit the characteristics of what has long been recognised as the wicked or messy type of problem situation (Rittlle & Webber, 1973; Ackoff, 1981). This is because such problem situations can be replete with ambiguity and conflicts in so far as they transcend the domain of jurisdiction of sovereign states. It is not always clear what or who may be responsible for what facet of the problem, what the parties’ bottom lines are, what needs to be done, how it needs to be done and by whom it needs to be done. However, not only global scale problems fall outside the control of a single society. In fact, many societal problem situations can exhibit variable degrees of messiness when they are first encountered and the apparent ambiguity is at its highest. The choice of an appropriate methodology for problem analysis and participative engagement can be tricky since this stage exposes the facilitator to the risk of a circularity of bad interpretations. This is why the facilitator needs a methodology to assess the problem situation so as to be able to select the best methodology for tackling it. The first step toward problem resolution must be a dialogue with the involved parties to identify the narratives of causation and ambiguity. By inviting all the involved parties to speak, the facts of the problem situation can be revealed. This can be aided by analysing the people’s expressions to reveal value judgments, (in)consistencies and causal attributions (Kirk, 2002). In this way the extent of agreement amongst the parties will gradually be increased on the way to finding a consensual solution to the problem solution. This will also involve leaving the room to agree, to disagree, and to strike mutually acceptable trade-offs. In the end, some way has to be found to take into account all of the shades of opinion whilst avoiding the kind of paralysis brought about by endless indecision unjustified by the established facts. 58 There are a number of examples of theories and development methodologies that have tried to face such complexity. For example, Participatory Design (Simonsen & Robertson, 2012) questions the way steps should be taken to address a design problem in specific contexts. The UI-REF (see 'Requirements' chapter), a normative ethno-methodological framework, is consistent with advocacies of most observers (e.g. Wilson) as the way into the domain of attainable solutions. Another notable example of the various approaches that have been advocated for managing problem situations is Total Systems Intervention (TSI). This advocates that the methodology to tackle problem situations should be based on two dimensions: 1) the complexity of the situation, being simple or complex, and, 2) the nature of the relationships between those involved, i.e. unitarian, pluralistic or coercive (Flood and Jackson, 1991). The last example cited here is the Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) (Checkland & Scholes, 1990; Lewis, 1992) which offers cognitive mapping of the problem situation aided by Rich Pictures deployed in Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA) (Eden, 1999) or in Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing (SAST) (Mason and Mitroff, 1981). Establishing and Facilitating the Dialogue Once the target groups and the issues relevant for them have been identified, the next step will be to facilitate a dialogue with the members of the communities of interest on those issues and their possible solutions. Offering appropriate platforms to carry out this dialogue is a key role of the CAPS projects. An important aspect of these platforms will be the creation of space for innovative solutions offered by the communities themselves. People who deal with the issues in their own lives on a regular basis are uniquely suited for coming up with ideas for practical and viable solutions, much more so than most policy makers or researchers who are not personally affected by the issues. A natural consequence of opening a discussion on pressing issues and problems to a wide audience is that conflicting ideas and opinions are bound to surface.The collective awareness platforms will at times need to be used for mediating these conflicts and for finding a common ground despite the differences. Guiding the discussion towards consensus is a role that can be played both by members of the community of interest as well as mediated by tools or researchers. At a certain point, when the participants have been given sufficient time and space to present their ideas, to air their differences, and to have their say, it will be necessary to find the right moment to wrap up the discussion so that appropriate strategies for dealing with the issues can be implemented. It is vital that the dialogue with stakeholders is given the highest priority, as it is this dialogue that sets the CAPS projects apart by creating a collective awareness. 59 — Dealing with the Sociocultural Diversity Each community of interest involved in the CAPS projects has different sociocultural contexts. A multitude of factors may differ among them, such as predominant age, gender, religion, nationality and language, physical and mental abilities, standard of living, level of education and whether those being addressed belong to the 'majority' or to a marginalised segment of the population. This diversity must be considered when defining engagement strategies. To fullfill an inclusive and universal approach, another very important factor that the CAPS projects have to take into account is whether the community of interest being addressed is, on average, internet savvy or not. How familiar people are with technologies must be considered in designing engagement strategies and the participatory working dynamics. Elicitation of Requirements In moving from the understanding of a social situation to a technical requirements elicitation, it is necessary to have methods, tools and instruments to decode values, motives, languages, and other aspects related to the people involved. Various methodologies have been proposed for usability requirements engineering, evaluation and impact assessment. As set out in the previous chapters, the UI-REF methodological framework is outlined here as one of the possible strategies for getting requirements, since it has already been implemented in a number of EC-funded projects including the SCICAFE2.0 CAPS project (www.scicafe.2-0.eu). UI-REF stands for User-Intimate Integrative Requirements Elicitation and Usability Evaluation Framework (Badii, 2008). Due to its holistic character, UI-REF can be used as a normative ethno-methodological framework incorporating other methods and instruments, such as empirical ethnographic approaches, cultural probes, laddering, online self-report, action research, nested-video-assisted situation walkthrough, virtual user, and gaming enabled role-play approaches to arrive at a high-resolution requirements elicitation, conflict resolution and prioritisation, and to support the evaluation in terms of usability and efficacy of a proposed solution to a problem situation. Based on the fundamental assumption that things are most valued and therefore most defended in the context that they are most useful, UI-REF sets out a highly context-sensitive analysis in terms of framing and taming the complexity of the problem situation and also for mapping (sub)contexts. These (sub)contexts consider which specific needs of specific actors are most deeply valued, as well as the (sub)contexts where impacts of the problem are deemed by the actors to affect them adversely, mission-critically and intolerably. This allows a mapping of zones of possible trade-offs from the various partners within a negotiation-centric approach to consensus solution seeking considering a multitude of aspects related to the actors, such as their role responsibilities, goals, patterns of behaviour, etc. 60 The process starts by acquiring the domain knowledge about the problem situation, and all the actors and entities involved as well as their respective attributes, etc. Then a selection of the above methods can be deployed as appropriate in conjunction with a Collective-Awareness Tool, for example, Citizen’s Say in order to support the participative engagement of the stakeholders, as in the SCICAFE2.0 project. The first goal is to support shared meaning and deeper understanding of the values, motives, needs, pinch/hurt points and trade-off tipping points of each stakeholder group in each relevant context of their exposure to the problem situation. Figure 6 Context Structuring 61 The pivotal step in this phase is the study and analysis of names and value-languages of the parties involved. Figure 6 below depicts the context structuring and coupling of the most deeply valued needs to the (sub)contexts relevant for each particular exposure as assisted by defining the key semantic differentiators of the problem contexts (context switches) and the prototypical actors’ needs hierarchies in each of the identified prototypical contexts of the problem situation. 62 Evaluation and Holistic Assessment How frequently, the length of time, and the way people have used the social platforms are important measurements for evaluation. The user experience related to the collective awareness tools are also important indicators, but they are not enough to express the engagement with a social issue. Bridging digitally-mediated activity with actions in the wider world of social relations is the main challenge to providing consistent engagement evaluations. Integrating quantitative data with content analysis of self-reports is a possible way to evaluate, but it is also important to find ways to measure activities in the physical world that reflect the impact of technology. — Evaluation and Assessment of Impacts of Candidate Solutions Trying to evaluate what a solution delivers to citizens involves a holistic approach, and involves relating the solution to people's life experience. The criteria should therefore be situated in the local context, but what we can do now is to list some criteria that include the safety and ethical safeguards. For example, a CAPS initiative should be aware of : — Assurance of no harm or hurt, which includes both physical safety considerations as well as ensuring that the individual exposed to the solution does not suffer from any negative emotional consequences that amount to hurt feelings. — Privacy-dignity-reputation, which includes respecting the conduct of both the system in terms of its performance specification as well as the manner of its operational deployment. — Gendered design to ensure that the solution is aware of gender differences where these might be relevant to the exposure of individuals to the solution. — Avoidance of any classifications by the system which may expose its operation to the risk of stereotyping, stigmatising or inequitable treatment of any persons exposed to the solution. Additionally, the socio-ethical organisational and societal impacts of the solution performance will need to be factored in based on a methodological framework. For example, many psycho-physiological research results relating to Human Judgement and Decision- Making Theory (JDM), notably pleasure and pain recall, and, Learning Theory (for example as reported in Badii 2000, 2008) have investigated human memory biases that underpin a methodological approach to evaluation and impact assessment that remains aware of 63 memory biases at individual and organisational levels. This is justified for example by observations such as: a user’s view on the usability of a device is not frozen in time but is subject to a dynamic change over time. It follows that there is a need for an evolving evaluation scheme, e.g. the Dynamic Usability Relationship-Based Evaluation (DURE) method (Badii 2000, 2008) which takes account of the dynamic relationship that can develop between the stakeholders and the solution as illustrated in Figure 7 below. Among the actual CAPS projects, SCICAFE2.0 deploys the UI-REF framework which provides for a DURE-enhanced evaluation and impact assessment of approaches to participative engagement. In this frame, the usability of a solution is perceived as a cumulative human impression that can be re-called by a user to indicate his/her pattern of relating to a particular solution. This means that as the patterns or causes of user dissatisfaction can be variable and ever-changing, a static measure of usability and its investigation as such on the basis of fixed criteria will be inadequate in revealing the roots and routes of a user’s perceived (dis)satisfaction, thus pointing to the precise causes of usability issues that a user has perceived, remembered and thus been affected by. Figure 7 Solution Acceptance, Rejection and (Mis-)Appropriation Cycles by Stakeholders 64 For example as per UI-REF-based requirements of co-design and evaluation criteria which need to be applied on a wide scale should incorporate: — Key Performance Indicators (KPIs): these are the metrics for the assessment of the level of the achievement the priority requirements delivered by the solution. — Quality of Experience ( QoE): measured both during after the use experience. — Effects: these are the intended impacts to be measured. — Side Effects: these are the secondary, unintended, effects arising from the primary effects of the solution. — Cross Effects and Affects: these are collateral secondary effects arising in other domains beyond the domain of the problem situation for which the solution has been devised. — Holistic Impact Assessment: this will include the assessment of societal and organisational dimensions. Such a kind of evaluation can be deployed with a combination of as many techniques as possible, e.g. online self-report, card-sorts, laddering, nested-video interviews/cognitive- walk-throughs. The results of the data and evidence collected in such a way can be used to articulate the relationships between the different kinds of effects. 65 66 6. Conclusion 67 Conclusion The aim of the CAPS projects is to promote positive social change. The most effective way to achieve this is through sustainable changes in citizens' everyday lives, in their communities and at the political level. In order to bring about real change on a political level it is of course essential to influence policy makers on the local, national and international level. How this is approached in the context of the CAPS projects is the subject of the following section. — Influencing Policy Makers The introduction of a collective awareness platform within a social group can be understood as a system with three layers: the technical, formal and informal layers. Figure 8 illustrates this model, which is based on organisational semiotics (Liu, 2000), a set of methods and tools for analysing information systems, and Hall’s (1959) understanding of a societal culture. By following this approach, it can be said that the technical layer is the technology to be introduced in the CAPS projects, surrounded by the formal and informal layers. The formal layer refers to policies and everything that is regulated by rules and laws. The informal level represents the cultural aspects that shape how people perceive the world and their country, relate to each other and to technology, and so on. Informal Formal Values Beliefs Moti vatio ns Policies Regu latio ns Technical Collective awareness platformFigure 8 3 Layers 68 This illustration shows the influence which the different layers have upon each other. On the one hand the design of the technology must take into account existing policies and regulations as well as people’s motivations, values, beliefs, etc. On the other hand the use of collective awareness platforms as a technical divide can allow users and stakeholders to exert an influence on the other layers. The real-time visualisations of digital content provided by DECARBONET (Figure 9) exemplifies how user-generated information in different social media channels can be used by NGOs and policy makers to understand how specific topics, for example climate change, air pollution, and carbon footprint, are being perceived and discussed within society. The effect of CAPS is twofold: if on one hand they may contribute to shaping and canalising bottom-up instances, on the other, they may support the emergence of awareness and expand the base of people interested in a specific topic. This combined action can have a disruptive influence on policy makers, contributing to the emergence of requests that—having a large base and coming from the citizens in a structure format— can no longer be ignored by the political agenda. It is the case for Right2Water, a European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) that succeeded in gathering more than the one million signatures (as requested by the Treaty of Lisbon) to call directly on the European Commission to propose a legal act in an area where the Me mber States have conferred powers onto the EU level. The initiative invites the European Commission to propose legislation implementing the human right to water and sanitation as recognised by the United Nations, and promoting the provision of water and sanitation as essential public services for all. This important achievement was made possible by engaging European citizens in a sign-in campaign centralised on the initiative web. 69 — Outlook for the Future The CAPS projects introduced in this book are the first projects to be funded under the CAPS programme and at the point of writing are still in their initial phase. This representation of the current situation of CAPS initiatives is only a starting point and indicates the direction of things to come. When the research and development results are available it will be easier to further refine the definition of CAPS, their research agendas and their potential application domains. This will also be further refined as more authors who were not able to contribute to this book sprint will provide their expert views in the future. This book has the aim of providing the reader with useful information and encouragement to develop their own CAPS initiative. Taking examples and inspiration from projects that are up and running, the reader is called upon to develop a vision for adapting these examples to issues close to their own heart. Acting in the technical domain with an interdisciplinary approach, which includes in its analysis social, cultural, economic, and political elements, CAPS projects are reflecting a well-known dynamic in the study of peer production, making the failure of 'business as usual' practices visible, and envisioning alternative European societies. 70 7. References 71 References Ackoff, R. (1981) 'The Art and Science of Mess Management'. Interfaces 11. pp. 20-26. American Psychological Association. 'Civic Engagement'. http://www.apa.org/education/ undergrad/civic-engagement.aspx. Badii A. (2000) 'Online Point-of-Click Web Usability Mining with PopEval-MB, WebEval- AB and the C-Assure Methodology'. Proceedings of Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2000), University of California, Long Beach, August 2000. Badii A. (2008) 'User-Intimate Requirements Hierarchy Resolution Framework (UI-REF): Methodology for Capturing Ambient Assisted Living Needs'. Proceedings of the Research Workshop, Int. Ambient Intelligence Systems Conference (AmI’08), Nuremberg, Germany, November 2008. Bandura, A. (1982) 'Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency'. American Psychologist 37. pp.122-147. Benkler, Y. (2006) The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. Yale University Press. Boyd, D. M. (2008) Taken out of Context: American Teen Sociality in Networked Publics. ProQuest. Buckingham Shum, S. & Deakin Crick, R. (2012) Learning Dispositions ... Knowledge. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, April 29- May 2, 2012. Checkland, P.B. & Scholes, J. (1990) Soft Systems Methodology in Action. John Wiley & Sons.. Conklin, J. (2006) Dialogue Mapping. Wiley. Currie, M., Kelty, C. & Murillo, L. F. R (2013) 'Free Software trajectories: From Organized Publics to Formal Social Enterprises?'. Journal of Peer Production 1 (3). Dourish, P. & Bellotti, V. (1992) 'Awareness and Coordination in Shared Workspaces'. In: Proceedings of the 1992 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. pp. 107-114. Eden, C. (1999) 'Using Cognitive Mapping for Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA)'. In: Rosenhead, J. (ed.). Rational Analysis for a Problematical World. Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict. John Wiley & Sons. 72 EESI (2007) Recent Polling on Public Perceptions of Climate Change. Environmental and Energy Study Institute. Flood, R.L. & Jackson, M.C. (1991) Creative Problem Solving. John Wiley & Sons. Gabriel, Y. (2000) Storytelling in Organizations Facts, Fictions, and Fantasies. Oxford University Press. Forte, A. & Bruckman, A. (2005) Why Do People Write for Wikipedia? Incentives to Contribute to Open–Content Publishing. Proceedings of GROUP, 5, 6-9. Gilbert, G.N. & Mulkay, M. (1984) Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse. Cambridge University Press. Godin, B. (2012) 'Social Innovation Utopias of Innovation from c.1830 to the Present'. Working paper No.11, Project on the Intellectual History Of Innovation, Montréal: INRS. Howe, J. (2006) 'The Rise of Crowdsourcing'. Wired magazine 14 (6). pp.1-4. Hall, E.T. (1959) The Silent Language. Anchor Books. Kelty, C. M. (2008) Two bits: The Cultural Significance of Free Software. Duke University Press. Kirk, D., Douglas, A., Brennan, C. & Ingram, A. (2002) 'Combining Cognitive Maps and Soft Systems Methodology to Analyse Qualitative Data'. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Systems Thinking in Management, Salford, UK, April 2002. Kittur, A., Chi, E. H. & Suh, B. (2008) 'Crowdsourcing User Studies with Mechanical Turk'. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. pp. 453-456. Klein, J.T. (2010) A Taxonomy of Interdisciplinarity. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, 15. Latour, B. (2004) Politics of Nature. Harvard University Press. Lewis, P.J. (1992) 'Rich Picture Building in the Soft Systems Methodology'. European Journal of Information Systems 1 (5). pp.351-360. de Liddo, A., Sándor, Á. & Buckingham Shum, S. (2012) 'Contested Collective Intelligence: Rationale, Technologies, and a Human-Machine Annotation Study'. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 21. pp.417-448. 73 Liu, K. (2000) Semiotics in Information Systems Engineering. Cambridge University Press. Macintosh, A. (2008) 'The Emergence of Digital Governance'. Significance 5 (4). pp.176-178. Macintosh, A. (2009). Moving Toward "Intelligent" Policy Development. IEEE Intelligent Systems 24(5): 79-82. Mason, R.O. & Mitroff, I. I. (1981) Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions. Wiley. Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J. & Mulgar, G. (2010) The Open Book of Social Innovation. Young Foundation/NESTA. OECD (2003) 'Promise and Problems of E-Democracy: Challenges of Online Citizen Engagement'. OECD Publications Service. http://www.oecd.org/governance/public- innovation/35176328.pdf. OECD, Eurostat. (2005) 'Oslo Manual'. Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data. De Paoli, S. & Teli, M. (eds.) (2011) 'New Groups and New Methods? The Ethnography and Qualitative Research of Online Groups'. Etnografia e Ricerca Qualitativa, 4 (2). pp.183-188. Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. Penguin UK. Philip, J.A., Deiglmeier, K. & Miller, D. (2008) 'Rediscovering Social Innovation'. Stanford Social Innovation Review (Fall 2008). pp.34-43. Piccolo, L., Alani, H., De Liddo, A. & Baranauskas, C. (2013) 'Motivating Online Engagement and Debates on Energy Consumption'. To be published in the proceeding of WebSci 2014. Piccolo, L., Alani, H., De Liddo, A. & Baranauskas, C. (2014) 'Motivating Online Engagement and Debates on Energy Consumption'. Accepted for publication at ACM WebSci' 2014. Portes, A. (1998) 'Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology'. Annual Review of Sociology. Rheingold, H. (1993) The Virtual Community: Finding Connection in a Computerized World. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc. Rittel, H.W.J. & Webber, M. M. (1973) 'Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning'. Policy Science. Rossi, C. & Teli, M. (2009) 'Music Collectivities and MySpace: Towards Digital Collectives'. In: System Sciences, 2009. HICSS'09. 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE. pp. 1-11. 74 Sestini, F. (2012) 'Collective Awareness Platforms: Engines for Sustainability and Ethic'. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine. http://caps2020.eu/wp-content/ uploads/2013/11/CollectiveAwarenessPlatformsEngineforSustainabilityandEthics-1.pdf. Simmel, G. (1957) 'Fashion'. American Journal of Sociology 62 (6). pp.541-558 Simonsen, J., & Robertson, T. (eds.) (2012) Routledge Handbook of Participatory Design. Routledge. Stryker, S. (1986) 'Identity Theory: Development and Extensions'. In: K. Yardley & T. Honess (eds.). Self and Identity. Wiley. Tarde, G. (1890) Les lois de l'imitation: étude sociologique. Félix Alcan. Uzzi, B. (1996) 'The Sources and Consequences of Embeddedness for the Economic Performance of Organizations: The Network Effect'. American Sociological Review 61 (4). pp. 674 - 698. Walton, D. (2009) 'Argumentation Theory: A Very Short Introduction'. In: Rahwan, I. & Simari, G.R. (eds.). Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer. pp. 1-22. Walton, D., Reed, C. & Macagno, F. (2008) Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press. Weber, M. (1949) The Methodology of the Social Sciences. Free Press. Wilson, B. (2001) Soft Systems Methodology: Conceptual Model Building and its Contribution. John Wiley & Sons. Yates, R. B. & Lalmas, M. (2012) 'User Engagement: The Network Effect Matters!' In: Proceedings of the 21st ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM '12). ACM, New York. pp.1-2. 75