IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2021 - 64

Feature
take part in the project. While some were enthusiastic
and shared stories of their experiences, others were
dismissive of the project's potential (citing a lack of
time/interest or a lack of faith in the municipality to
effect lasting change). We also heard stories about
the pressure that COVID-19 had placed upon many
businesses. In informal conversations with participants
who attended the workshops, we got hints of
difficulties taking part due to lack of confidence with
email or online meeting technologies, as well as practical
concerns about timings of workshops (and how
to fit them into work/home life). The students who
ran the LL noted the challenge of planning activities
online that feel good and engage people, highlighting
the importance of creating a nice atmosphere for
the discussions. Developing these reflections, we can
therefore identify four possible barriers to entry.
First, the pandemic restrictions and the general
societal uncertainty pertaining to meeting strangers
in person limited the attractiveness of our initial
activities and LL kickoff. This seemed to be particularly
true for groups such as older people and parents
with young children.
Second, and related, the pandemic-induced decision
to move the LL process to an online format on
short notice further limited the practical accessibility
of the LL to individuals of high IT literacy, and
specifically those with previous experience in online
meeting and creative collaboration.
A third theme concerns perceived social coherence.
LL methodology as well as participatory design,
in general, is intended to overcome certain social
barriers in successfully bringing people from different
backgrounds together to work for a common cause
or a shared interest [14]. However, most or all practical
experience validating this approach comes from
physically colocated LL processes. We speculate that
the mechanisms and social protocols that people
draw upon to relate to strangers are, to some degree,
invalidated in an online collaboration setting and thus
practical accessibility to the LL in our case was limited
to individuals experiencing a greater degree of social
coherence with the organizers and facilitators.
Finally, LLs and participatory design, in general,
are considered capable of dealing with conflicting
agendas in productive ways, sometimes even
being characterized as agonistic transformation
approaches [15]. There are ways to go beyond the
least common denominator of consensus-seeking
toward creative conflicts, but again, more or less all
64
practical knowing of how to do this is set in physically
colocated design spaces. Going to an online format
may have limited the LL's agonistic abilities severely,
thus moving away further from true inclusivity.
In SepTember 2020, an observation of Kungsgatan
users conducted by a student connected to the project
provided a snapshot of those using the street at
different times. Looking at the results of these observations
as well as our own everyday contact with the
street (the university campus where many of us have
offices/labs is located next to Kungsgatan, so we are
regular users of the area) presents a bleak contrast
between the LL participants and the everyday users
of the street. Are any apparent elements of success
thus invalidated by the lack of representativity-as-inclusivity
in the process that generated the results?
We find that there is no simple criterion to assess
the success of an LL and its outcomes; no objective
" success " or " failure " grade to assign. As soon as multiple
stakeholders and different agendas are brought
to the deliberative table, it is only to be expected that
the assessment of the outcome is going to depend
on whose assessment you are asking for [16]. The LL
that the students conducted actually produced rich,
detailed visions that contain much useful qualitative
information and inspiration.
The ten-year visions that the LL produced are
highly compatible with Agenda 2030 development
goals as well as contemporary international discourse
on sustainable urban development; moreover,
they are proving easy to use in our ongoing
backcasting process to provide directions for
development of smart city technology that must be
deemed very much in line with general notions of
PIT. On balance, we feel that our approach represents
a valuable step toward more sustainable smart
city technology even though we identify room for
future improvement with respect to inclusivity.

Acknowledgment
This work was supported by FORMAS, Swedish
Research Council for Sustainable Development
under Project 2019-01281.
 References
[1] U. Habitat. The Strategic Plan 2020-2023. Accessed:
Aug. 16, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://unhabitat.
org/sites/default/files/documents/2019-09/strategic_
plan_2020-2023.pdf
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine
https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/documents/2019-09/strategic_ plan_2020-2023.pdf https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/documents/2019-09/strategic_ plan_2020-2023.pdf https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/documents/2019-09/strategic_ plan_2020-2023.pdf
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2021

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2021
