Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 104 references

"Near Data" and "Far Data" for Urban Sustainability: How Do Community Advocates Envision Data Intermediaries?

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Community advocates envision data intermediaries as connectors of “near” and “far” data, not neutral data providers.

desk verdict A solid qualitative study with a genuinely useful near/far data framing; the main risk is whether one map-based probe can stand in for data intermediaries as a class, but that is a limitation to address, not a fatal flaw. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07661 v1 pith:TSJ5OGCQ submitted 2025-01-13 cs.HC cs.CY

Han Qiao , Siyi Wu , Christoph Becker This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.CY
keywords urbaninformaticscivictechdataintermediarycommunityadvocacyfeminismnearandfarsustainabilitydesignpathways
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Based on interviews with 17 community advocates working with 23 grassroots and nonprofit organizations in Toronto, this paper argues that advocates see data intermediaries’ central task as connecting “near data” (self-collected data, lived experiences, conversations) with “far data” (heavily processed open government and academic datasets). The paper identifies three pathways for pursuing this vision: aligning data exploration with storytelling, communicating context and uncertainties, and decentering artifacts for relationship building. If this vision is right, data intermediaries should prioritize relational, context-aware design over neutral data delivery, and data feminism principles become a practical guide for their work.

What carries the argument

The central conceptual object is the near/far data distinction: near data are close to everyday life and embodied experience, while far data are distant, processed, and often institutional. The paper operationalizes this distinction through a technology probe, Curbcut Toronto, a map-based urban data visualization tool that represents a common type of data intermediary product. The probe elicits advocates’ reactions and reflections, from which the three pathways are derived. Data feminism principles (examine power, challenge power, elevate emotion and embodiment, rethink binaries, embrace pluralism, consider context, make labor visible) serve as the interpretive frame for turning those reflections into design guidance.

What would settle it

A replication study in which community advocates interact with a non-map-based intermediary, such as a human data-help desk or a text-based data service, and do not express the need to connect near and far data, would undermine the claim that the near/far vision is a general vision for data intermediaries rather than a response to map dashboards.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper’s central claim is that community advocates, as expert data practitioners, envision data intermediaries as bridges between near data and far data. Advocates treat near data as essential for making sense of, enriching, questioning, and challenging far data: lived experience gives meaning to abstract statistics, and self-collected counterdata exposes what official datasets miss. The three pathways—aligning data exploration with diverse storytelling, communicating context and uncertainties, and decentering artifacts for relationship building—are presented as concrete ways for intermediaries to act on this vision. The paper grounds these pathways in the advocates’ own practices and connects them to data feminism principles.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that one map-based visualization tool, Curbcut Toronto, can stand in for data intermediaries in general, so that advocates’ reactions to it reveal their visions for the whole class of intermediary practices.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the vision is correct, data intermediaries should design for storytelling: supporting flexible exploration of far data while also surfacing marginalized and experiential ways of knowing.
  • Intermediaries should communicate the context, uncertainties, and intentions behind data, rather than presenting indicators as neutral facts.
  • Intermediaries should decenter their own tools and invest in relationship building, local networks, and capacity building, because data use is embedded in social relationships.
  • The near/far distinction offers data intermediaries a concrete way to attend to data settings and to enact data feminism principles in their design choices.
  • Adopting these pathways would position data intermediaries as contributors to the Right to the City rather than mere facilitators of data access.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The near/far framing could be extended beyond urban sustainability into any domain where citizens encounter institutional data, such as health, education, or environmental justice; the same relational design principles may apply.
  • A testable extension would be to build a data intermediary tool with explicit support for uploading or attaching near data (e.g., lived-experience annotations, community-collected counterdata) and measuring whether advocates’ trust, engagement, and narrative power increase.
  • The paper’s emphasis on relationship building suggests that the success of data intermediaries might be better measured by the strength and growth of local networks, not by tool usage statistics—a shift that would change how civic tech is evaluated.
  • The single-probe design implies that future work could compare reactions to different genres of intermediary artifacts, such as human-mediated data help desks versus map dashboards, to test whether the near/far vision is specific to visualization tools or generalizes across intermediary forms.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a qualitative interview study with 17 community advocates working with 23 grassroots and nonprofit organizations in Toronto. The authors use semi-structured interviews in which a map-based urban data visualization tool (Curbcut Toronto) is introduced as a technology probe. From a thematic analysis, they propose that community advocates distinguish 'near data' (self-collected, lived-experience, conversational) from 'far data' (heavily processed open government or academic data), and that the advocates' central vision for data intermediaries is to connect these two types of data. The paper articulates three pathways to pursue this vision: aligning data exploration with storytelling, communicating context and uncertainties, and decentering artifacts for relationship building. It then interprets these findings through data feminism and argues that the vision contributes to the Right to the City.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a useful contribution to CSCW and HCI. The near/far distinction provides a language for thinking about data provenance and relationality in urban data work, and the three pathways are concrete enough to guide design of data intermediary tools. The study's strengths include a reasonably large qualitative sample for this domain, rich illustrative quotes that give the reader direct access to the advocates' perspectives, and a transparent description of the transcription and scaffolding procedures. The paper also makes an explicit effort to connect the findings to data feminism, and the actionable items in Figure 6 are a welcome translation of the themes into design guidance. The main weakness is that the central claim may be partly an artifact of the specific technology probe, a concern that needs to be addressed before the general conclusion about data intermediaries as a class can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.3 and Section 4.1] The claim that Curbcut Toronto 'represents in many ways a common type of data intermediary tool' (Section 3.3) is not supported by evidence, and this assumption is load-bearing for the paper's central conclusion. The entire near/far vision, and especially Pathway 2 (communicate context and uncertainties), is inferred in part from participants' reactions to a tool that presents only far data (open government and census data). The paper does not separate statements made in the pre-probe portions of the interviews (protocol parts 1 and 2, Section 3.2) from statements made while or after using the probe, so it cannot rule out that the near/far dichotomy is a contrast effect produced by the probe's specific absence of near data. To support the claim that advocates envision this for data intermediaries generally, the paper should either (a) report a sensitivity analysis comparing pre-probe and probe-elicited responses, (b) triangulate with participants' experiences of other intermediary types catalogued in Section 2.2 (e.g., BikeSpace, No More Noise Toronto, which are near-data-centric), or (c) explicitly narrow the contribution to map-based data exploration tools of the Curbcut genre. Without one of these, the central claim is overgeneralized relative to the evidence presented.
  2. [Section 3.4 and Section 4] The paper's member-check procedure is described too confidently as validation of the themes. Section 3.4 states that participants were given their own quotes and related insights and that 'no corrections were made,' but this checks quote accuracy and participant-specific insights, not the cross-participant synthesis (the near/far vision and the three pathways) that constitutes the paper's central contribution. Moreover, the thematic analysis was conducted entirely by the first two authors, and the mapping of data feminism principles to quotes was done by the first author and reviewed only by the last author; no independent coding, audit trail, negative case analysis, or inter-coder agreement is reported. Because the central claim is an interpretive generalization across 17 participants, the paper should either provide a more substantive form of corroboration (e.g., a negative case analysis or a member-check in which participants respond to the synthesized pathways) or explicitly discuss this as a limitation in a dedicated limitations subsection. As written, the inference from individual quotes to a shared vision is undersupported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typographical spacing error before a closing quotation mark ('far data. ”'), which should be corrected.
  2. [Section 4.1.1] The sentence 'Almost all participants mentioned their various ways of using census data' contrasts with later uses of 'all participants' and 'nearly all participants' elsewhere; please check the intended quantifier for consistency.
  3. [Section 5.3] The citation to Bhardwaj et al. [11] appears to be a manuscript without a clear venue or preprint identifier; please provide a complete citation or mark it as in preparation.
  4. [General] The paper has no explicit limitations subsection; adding one that addresses the single-city sample, the recruitment from the first author's network, and the probe-centered method would help readers calibrate the scope of the claims.
  5. [Section 3.4] The phrase 'the first and second author would first watch recordings' uses a singular noun with a compound subject; it should be 'the first and second authors.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the near/far vision is an interpretive finding from interview data, not a fitted or self-citational derivation.

full rationale

This paper does not derive its central claim from a fitted parameter or from the same authors' prior results. The 'near data' and 'far data' distinction is introduced as an analytic category grounded in participants' accounts (self-collected data, lived experiences, conversations versus heavily processed open data) and in established feminist data literature (Haraway, D'Ignazio and Klein), not defined by the paper's conclusions. The three pathways (storytelling, context and uncertainties, decentering artifacts) are presented as themes from inductive thematic analysis with participant quotes as evidence; no equation or quantitative model is fitted, so no prediction reduces by construction to an input. The self-citations (Bhardwaj et al. [11], McCord and Becker [70], Walker and Becker [98]) support background claims about psychological distance, relational civic tech, and green mapping; they are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification for the near/far framework, and the framework does not depend on their being true. The main validity risk, that the Curbcut Toronto probe ('in many ways a common type of data intermediary tool') may have elicited responses specific to a map-based far-data tool, is a generalizability concern about the empirical sampling, not a circularity: even if the probe influenced responses, the claimed vision is still an interpretation of those responses rather than an arithmetic or definitional consequence of the probe. The member check confirmed quotes but not cross-participant generalization, which is likewise a validity limitation, not a circular step. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained qualitative analysis; no specific reduction to inputs or self-citations is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

No numerical fitting is involved. The analysis rests on interpretive assumptions: participants' self-reports are treated as evidence, the probe is treated as representative of data intermediary tools, and data feminism is treated as an appropriate lens for mapping themes. The near/far concepts are analytic constructions grounded in interview excerpts rather than externally falsifiable entities.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Participants' self-reports during interviews are reliable evidence of advocates' data practices and visions.
    The thematic analysis in §3.2 and §3.4 treats interview accounts as the primary source of data, with no independent observation of practices.
  • domain assumption Curbcut Toronto is representative of a common type of data intermediary tool.
    The paper uses the probe to provoke reflections on data intermediaries generally; §3.3 asserts it represents a common type.
  • domain assumption Data feminism principles are an appropriate and sufficient lens for organizing the findings.
    The authors map themes onto DF1-D F7 in §3.4 and §5.1, which presupposes the framework's relevance.
  • domain assumption Inductive thematic analysis with 17 interviews yields stable enough themes for design implications.
    The method section cites Braun and Clarke and affinity diagramming; no saturation or member-checking evidence is reported beyond sharing drafts.
invented entities (2)
  • Near data
    purpose: Analytic category for data close to advocates' everyday lives (self-collected data, lived experiences, conversations), used to articulate the vision.
    The concept is built from interview themes and feminist critiques; it is not a falsifiable measurement.
  • Far data
    purpose: Analytic category for heavily processed, institutionally distant data such as open government and academic datasets.
    Introduced to define the opposite pole of the distance spectrum and motivate the bridge design vision.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of "Near Data" and "Far Data" for Urban Sustainability: How Do Community Advocates Envision Data Intermediaries?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TSJ5OGCQ

@misc{pith2026250107661,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: "Near Data" and "Far Data" for Urban Sustainability: How Do Community Advocates Envision Data Intermediaries?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TSJ5OGCQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07661}
}
read the original abstract

In the densifying data ecosystem of today's cities, data intermediaries are crucial stakeholders in facilitating data access and use. Community advocates live in these sites of social injustices and opportunities for change. Highly experienced in working with data to enact change, they offer distinctive insights on data practices and tools. This paper examines the unique perspectives that community advocates offer on data intermediaries. Based on interviews with 17 advocates working with 23 grassroots and nonprofit organizations, we propose the quality of "near" and "far" to be seriously considered in data intermediaries' works and articulate advocates' vision of connecting "near data" and "far data." To pursue this vision, we identified three pathways for data intermediaries: align data exploration with ways of storytelling, communicate context and uncertainties, and decenter artifacts for relationship building. These pathways help data intermediaries to put data feminism into practice, surface design opportunities and tensions, and raise key questions for supporting the pursuit of the Right to the City.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07661 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Screenshots of Curbcut Toronto visualizing tree coverage in Toronto in three different geographic scales. Left: an example of visualization in ward level. Middle: an example of visualization in census tract level. Right: an example of visualization in dissemination area level. Like other systems of this kind [2, 5, 78], Curbcut Toronto relies on layers of data intermediaries curating, preparing and processing data f… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Curbcut Toronto allows users to correlate the featured variable on the map with a census variable. In the top screenshot, the users can select a variable from a list of census variables. In the bottom screenshot, the user is visualizing the correlation between Toronto tree coverage and average rent. A description text box is showing on the right indicating that there is a weak positive correlation between the two va… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Temporal exploration features of Curbcut Toronto. The tool allows users to look through available historic data and compare data at two different dates. Top left: visualizing active living potential in 2021. Top right: visualizing active living potential in 2011. Bottom: visualizing active living potential change from 2011 to 2021. open government data [59, 68, 82], data practices in community works [13, 14, 27], an… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An illustration of a segment within the urban data ecosystem focusing on how data passes through [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Toronto Stories module on Curbcut Toronto. This module shows a map of place-based stories and advocacy campaigns happening around Toronto. The pathway of aligning data exploration with diverse ways of storytelling emphasizes both making far data nearer and bringing var…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Starting points and actionable items suggested by community advocates for data intermediaries to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    BikeSpace - Toronto’s Bike Parking App

    2023. BikeSpace - Toronto’s Bike Parking App . https://bikespace.ca/

    2023

  2. [2]

    HealthyPlan

    2023. HealthyPlan. https://healthyplan.city/en

    2023

  3. [3]

    Open Water Data

    2023. Open Water Data. https://www.openwaterdata.com/

    2023

  4. [4]

    OpenStreetMap

    2023. OpenStreetMap. https://www.openstreetmap.org/

    2023

  5. [5]

    Manhattan Population Explorer

    2024. Manhattan Population Explorer. http://manpopex.us/

    2024

  6. [6]

    Obead Alhadreti and Pam Mayhew. 2018. Rethinking Thinking Aloud: A Comparison of Three Think-Aloud Protocols. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Montreal QC Canada, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173618

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Irina Anastasiu. 2019. Unpacking the Smart City Through the Lens of the Right to the City: A Taxonomy as a Way Forward in Participatory City-Making. In The Hackable City: Digital Media and Collaborative City-Making in the Network Society, Michiel de Lange and Martijn de Waal (Eds.). Springer, Singapore, 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-981-13-2694-3_13

    2019

  8. [8]

    Cecilia Aragon, Clayton Hutto, Andy Echenique, Brittany Fiore-Gartland, Yun Huang, Jinyoung Kim, Gina Neff, Wanli Xing, and Joseph Bayer. 2016. Developing a Research Agenda for Human-Centered Data Science. InProceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing Companion (CSCW ’16 Companion). ACM, New York, NY,...

    work page arXiv 2016

Show all 104 references
  1. [9]

    Jo Bates, Yu-Wei Lin, and Paula Goodale. 2016. Data journeys: Capturing the socio-material constitution of data objects and flows. Big Data & Society 3, 2 (Dec. 2016), 2053951716654502. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716654502 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    Ruha Benjamin. 2019. Race after technology: abolitionist tools for the New Jim Code . Polity Press, Cambridge, UK

    2019

  3. [11]

    Eshta Bhardwaj, Han Qiao, and Christoph Becker. 2024. Limits at a Distance: Design Directions to Address Psycho- logical Distance in Policy Decisions Affecting Planetary Boundaries. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: January 2025. 26 Qiao, et al

    2024

  4. [12]

    Kirsten Boehner, Janet Vertesi, Phoebe Sengers, and Paul Dourish. 2007. How HCI interprets the probes. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, San Jose California USA, 1077–1086. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240789

    2007

  5. [14]

    Chris Bopp, Ellie Harmon, and Amy Voida. 2017. Disempowered by Data: Nonprofits, Social Enterprises, and the Consequences of Data-Driven Work. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI ’17). Association for Com...

    2017

  6. [15]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (Jan. 2006), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    2006 doi

  7. [16]

    CANUE. 2023. The Canadian Urban Environmental Health Research Consortium. https://canue.ca/

    2023

  8. [17]

    Matthews, Marjory S

    Ramya Chari, Luke J. Matthews, Marjory S. Blumenthal, Amanda F. Edelman, and Therese Marie Jones. 2017. The Promise of Community Citizen Science . Technical Report. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/ perspectives/PE256.html

    2017

  9. [18]

    Joohee Choi and Yla Tausczik. 2017. Characteristics of Collaboration in the Emerging Practice of Open Data Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing . ACM, Portland Oregon USA, 835–846. https://doi.org/10.11...

    2017

  10. [19]

    CMHC. [n. d.]. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/

  11. [20]

    Jacqueline Corbett, Mathieu Templier, and Hirotoshi Takeda. 2018. The Making of a ’Top’ Open Data City: A Case Study of Edmonton’s Open Data Initiative. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2018.308

    2018 doi

  12. [21]

    Roderic Crooks. 2019. Accesso Libre: Equity of Access to Information through the Lens of Neoliberal Responsiblization. Journal of Critical Library and Information Studies 2, 1 (March 2019). https://doi.org/10.24242/jclis.v2i1.91 Number: 1

    2019 doi

  13. [22]

    Roderic Crooks and Morgan Currie. 2021. Numbers will not save us: Agonistic data practices.The Information Society 37, 4 (2021), 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2021.1920081 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2021.1920081

    2021

  14. [23]

    Morgan Currie (Ed.). 2022. Data Justice and the Right to the City . Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. https: //doi.org/doi:10.1515/9781474492973

    2022 doi

  15. [24]

    Shiva Darian, Aarjav Chauhan, Ricky Marton, Janet Ruppert, Kathleen Anderson, Ryan Clune, Madeline Cupchak, Max Gannett, Joel Holton, Elizabeth Kamas, Jason Kibozi-Yocka, Devin Mauro-Gallegos, Simon Naylor, Meghan O’Malley, Mehul Patel, Jack Sandberg, Troy Siegler, Ryan Tate, ...

  16. [25]

    Lina Dencik. 2022. Foreword. In Data Justice and the Right to the City . Edinburgh University Press, XV – XVii

    2022

  17. [26]

    Lina Dencik, Fieke Jansen, and Philippa Metcalfe. 2018. A conceptual framework for approaching social justice in an age of datafication. (2018)

    2018

  18. [27]

    Catherine D’Ignazio. 2022. Counting Feminicide: Data Feminism in Action . PubPub. https://mitpressonpubpub. mitpress.mit.edu/counting-feminicide Book Title: Counting Feminicide: Data Feminism in Action

    2022

  19. [28]

    Catherine D’Ignazio and Lauren Klein. 2021. Who Collects the Data? A Tale of Three Maps. MIT Case Studies in Social and Ethical Responsibilities of Computing Winter 2021 (Feb. 2021). https://doi.org/10.21428/2c646de5.fc6a97cc Publisher: MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

    2021 doi

  20. [29]

    Catherine D’Ignazio and Lauren F. Klein. 2020. Data Feminism. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    2020

  21. [30]

    Gayatri Doctor and Prajakta Joshi. 2022. Empowering Cities through Open Data - Open Government Data Initiatives in India. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New ...

    2022

  22. [31]

    Paul Dourish. 2007. Seeing like an interface. In Proceedings of the 19th Australasian conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Entertaining User Interfaces . ACM, Adelaide Australia, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/1324892.1324894

    2007

  23. [32]

    Graham Dove, Jack Shanley, Camillia Matuk, and Oded Nov. 2023. Open Data Intermediaries: Motivations, Barriers and Facilitators to Engagement. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, CSCW1, Article 78 (apr 2023), 22 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579511

    2023 doi

  24. [33]

    Sheena Erete, Emily Ryou, Geoff Smith, Khristina Marie Fassett, and Sarah Duda. 2016. Storytelling with Data: Examining the Use of Data by Non-Profit Organizations. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer- Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing . ACM, San ...

    2016

  25. [34]

    Virginia Eubanks. 2018. Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor . St. Martin’s Press, Inc., USA

    2018

  26. [35]

    Fainstein

    Susan S. Fainstein. 2014. The just city. International Journal of Urban Sciences 18, 1 (2014), 1–18. https://doi.org/10. 1080/12265934.2013.834643 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2013.834643

    2014

  27. [36]

    Kim Fortun. 2001. Advocacy after Bhopal: Environmentalism, Disaster, New Global Orders . University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo3641096.html

    2001

  28. [37]

    Mark Frank and Johanna Walker. 2016. User Centred Methods for Measuring the Value of Open Data. The Journal of Community Informatics 12, 2 (June 2016). https://doi.org/10.15353/joci.v12i2.3221 Number: 2

    2016 doi

  29. [38]

    Peter Frumkin. 2005. On Being Nonprofit: A Conceptual and Policy Primer . Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    2005

  30. [39]

    Funk, Matthew Lakier, Marcel O’Gorman, and Daniel Vogel

    Julie M. Funk, Matthew Lakier, Marcel O’Gorman, and Daniel Vogel. 2021. Exploring Smartphone Relationships through Roland Barthes using an Instrumented Pillow Technology Probe. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21) . Associat...

    2021

  31. [40]

    Bill Gaver, Tony Dunne, and Elena Pacenti. 1999. Design: Cultural probes. Interactions 6, 1 (Jan. 1999), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/291224.291235

    1999

  32. [41]

    Elisabeth Gebka, Jonathan Crusoe, and Karin Ahlin. 2021. Methods to Capture User Information Needs: Design Principles for Open Data Intermediaries and Data Providers. Data Science Journal 20, 1 (Dec. 2021), 37. https: //doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2021-037

    2021 doi

  33. [42]

    Gill and Blair Nonnecke

    Amy M. Gill and Blair Nonnecke. 2012. Think aloud: effects and validity. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM international conference on Design of communication . ACM, Seattle Washington USA, 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/2379057. 2379065

    2012 doi

  34. [43]

    Raw Data

    Lisa Gitelman. 2013. "Raw Data" Is an Oxymoron . The MIT Press

    2013

  35. [44]

    Statistics Canada Government of Canada. 2001. Census of Population. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census- recensement/index-eng.cfm Last Modified: 2023-09-12

    2001

  36. [45]

    Ben Green. 2019. The smart enough city: putting technology in its place to reclaim our urban future . The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    2019

  37. [46]

    Daniel Greene. 2021. The Promise of Access: Technology, Inequality, and the Political Economy of Hope . The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    2021

  38. [47]

    Gurstein

    Michael B. Gurstein. 2011. Open data: Empowering the empowered or effective data use for everyone? First Monday (Jan. 2011). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v16i2.3316

    2011 doi

  39. [48]

    Byung-Chul Han. 2017. Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and New Technologies of Power . Verso, London ; New York

    2017

  40. [49]

    Donna Haraway. 1988. Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies 14, 3 (1988), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066 Publisher: Feminist Studies, Inc

    1988 doi

  41. [50]

    David Harvey. 2013. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution (reprint edition ed.). Verso, London

    2013

  42. [51]

    Tali Hatuka, Eran Toch, Michael Birnhack, and Hadas Zur. 2020. The Digital City: Critical Dimensions in Implementing the Smart City. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3766782

    2020 doi

  43. [52]

    Sara Heitlinger, Nick Bryan-Kinns, and Rob Comber. 2019. The Right to the Sustainable Smart City. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Glasgow Scotland Uk, 1–13. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300517

    2019

  44. [53]

    Yen-Chia Hsu, Jennifer Cross, Paul Dille, Michael Tasota, Beatrice Dias, Randy Sargent, Ting-Hao (Kenneth) Huang, and Illah Nourbakhsh. 2019. Smell Pittsburgh: community-empowered mobile smell reporting system. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent...

    2019

  45. [54]

    Yen-Chia Hsu, Paul Dille, Jennifer Cross, Beatrice Dias, Randy Sargent, and Illah Nourbakhsh. 2018. Community- Empowered Air Quality Monitoring System. arXiv:1804.03293 [cs.HC]

    2018 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Hilary Hutchinson, Wendy Mackay, Bosse Westerlund, Benjamin B Bederson, Allison Druin, Catherine Plaisant, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, Stéphane Conversy, Helen Evans, Heiko Hansen, Nicolas Roussel, Björn Eiderbäck, Sinna Lindquist, and Yngve Sundblad. 2003. Technology Probes: Insp...

    2003

  47. [56]

    Johansen, Nicolai Brodersen Hansen, Ashna Mahmood Zada, and Peter Axel Nielsen

    Rikke Hagensby Jensen, Stine S. Johansen, Nicolai Brodersen Hansen, Ashna Mahmood Zada, and Peter Axel Nielsen

  48. [57]

    Sefidgar, Talie Massachi, Jina Suh, and Gonzalo Ramos

    Matthew Jörke, Yasaman S. Sefidgar, Talie Massachi, Jina Suh, and Gonzalo Ramos. 2023. Pearl: A Technology Probe for Machine-Assisted Reflection on Personal Data. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI ’23) . Association for Com...

    2023

  49. [58]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW2 (Oct

    Tensions in Data Journey Activities: Mobilising, Processing, Producing, and Re-purposing Data in Environmental Assessment Practice. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW2 (Oct. 2023), 363:1–363:22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610212

    2023 doi

  50. [59]

    Rob Kitchin. 2014. The Data Revolution: Big Data, Open Data, Data Infrastructures & Their Consequences . SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473909472

    2014 doi

  51. [60]

    Maxat Kassen. 2013. A promising phenomenon of open data: A case study of the Chicago open data project. Government Information Quarterly 30, 4 (Oct. 2013), 508–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.012

    2013 doi

  52. [61]

    Rob Kitchin and Niamh Moore-Cherry. 2021. Fragmented governance, the urban data ecosystem and smart city- regions: the case of Metropolitan Boston. Regional Studies 55, 12 (Dec. 2021), 1913–1923. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00343404.2020.1735627 Publisher: RSA Website _eprint: ht...

    2021

  53. [62]

    Lauriault, and Gavin McArdle

    Rob Kitchin, Tracey P. Lauriault, and Gavin McArdle. 2015. Knowing and governing cities through urban indicators, city benchmarking and real-time dashboards. Regional Studies, Regional Science 2, 1 (Jan. 2015), 6–28. https: //doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2014.983149 Publisher: Rou...

    2015

  54. [63]

    Chang Liu, Arif Usta, Jian Zhao, and Semih Salihoglu. 2023. Governor: Turning Open Government Data Portals into Interactive Databases. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machin...

    2023

  55. [64]

    Henri Lefebvre. 1968. The Right to the City . https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/henri-lefebvre-right-to-the-city

    1968

  56. [65]

    Gustavo Magalhaes, Catarina Roseira, and Sharon Strover. 2013. Open government data intermediaries: a terminology framework. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance . ACM, Seoul Republic of Korea, 330–333. https://doi....

    2013

  57. [66]

    Yanni Alexander Loukissas. 2019. All Data Are Local: Thinking Critically in a Data-Driven Society (1 ed.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11543.001.0001

    2019 doi

  58. [67]

    Ricardo Matheus, José Carlos Vaz, and Manuella Maia Ribeiro. 2014. Open government data and the data usage for improvement of public services in the Rio de Janeiro City. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV ...

    2014

  59. [68]

    Samuel Mann, Oliver Emile Glaves Bates, and Raymond Maher. 2018. Shifting the maturity needle of ICT for Sustainability, Birgit Penzenstadler, Steve Easterbrook, Colin Venters, and Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed (Eds.). EasyChair, CAN, 209–226. https://doi.org/10.29007/d6g3 Meeting Name...

    2018 doi

  60. [69]

    Shannon Mattern. 2017. A City Is Not a Computer. Places Journal (Feb. 2017). https://doi.org/10.22269/170207

    2017 doi

  61. [70]

    Shannon Mattern. 2015. History of the Urban Dashboard. https://placesjournal.org/article/mission-control-a-history- of-the-urban-dashboard]/#ref_38

    2015

  62. [71]

    Milagros Miceli, Tianling Yang, Laurens Naudts, Martin Schuessler, Diana Serbanescu, and Alex Hanna. 2021. Doc- umenting Computer Vision Datasets: An Invitation to Reflexive Data Practices. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency...

    2021

  63. [72]

    McCord and Christoph Becker

    Curtis W. McCord and Christoph Becker. 2023. Beyond Transactional Democracy: A Study of Civic Tech in Canada. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (April 2023), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579462

    2023 doi

  64. [73]

    Safiya Umoja Noble. 2018. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism (illustrated edition ed.). NYU Press, New York

    2018

  65. [74]

    Gina Neff, Anissa Tanweer, Brittany Fiore-Gartland, and Laura Osburn. 2017. Critique and Contribute: A Practice- Based Framework for Improving Critical Data Studies and Data Science. Big Data 5, 2 (June 2017), 85–97. https: //doi.org/10.1089/big.2016.0050

    2017

  66. [75]

    Cathy O’Neil. 2016. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy . Crown, New York

    2016

  67. [76]

    City of Toronto. 2017. Toronto Open Data. https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/data-research-maps/open-data/ Archive Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Publisher: City of Toronto Scroll: yes

    2017

  68. [77]

    Paulos, R

    E. Paulos, R. Honicky, and B. Hooker. 2008. Citizen science: Enabling participatory urbanism. Handbook of Research on Urban Informatics (Jan. 2008), 414–436. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-152-0.ch028

    2008 doi

  69. [78]

    Shreyasha Paudel and Robert Soden. 2023. Reimagining Open Data during Disaster Response: Applying a Feminist Lens to Three Open Data Projects in Post-Earthquake Nepal. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (April 2023), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579519

    2023 doi

  70. [79]

    Lucy Pei, Benedict Salazar Olgado, and Roderic Crooks. 2022. Narrativity, Audience, Legitimacy: Data Practices of Community Organizers. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts . ACM, New Orleans LA USA, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.35...

    2022

  71. [80]

    Rosamund Pearce. 2017. Mapped: How the US generates electricity. https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-the- us-generates-electricity/

    2017

  72. [81]

    Mark Purcell. 2014. Possible Worlds: Henri Lefebvre and the Right to the City. Journal of Urban Affairs 36, 1 (Feb. 2014), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/juaf.12034 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1111/juaf.12034

    2014 doi

  73. [82]

    Jennifer Preece, Daniel Pauw, and Tamara Clegg. 2019. Interaction design of community-driven environmental projects (CDEPs): A case study from the Anacostia Watershed. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 6 (2019), 1886–1893. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.180863...

    2019 doi

  74. [83]

    SoYon Rim, Jochim Hansen, and Yaacov Trope. 2013. What happens why? Psychological distance and focusing on causes versus consequences of events. 104, 3 (2013), 457–472. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031024

    2013 doi

  75. [84]

    Johnson, Kyle Montague, Philip James, and Peter Wright

    Aare Puussaar, Ian G. Johnson, Kyle Montague, Philip James, and Peter Wright. 2018. Making Open Data Work for Civic Advocacy. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2, CSCW, Article 143 (nov 2018), 20 pages. https://doi.org/10. 1145/3274412

    2018

  76. [85]

    Sawicki and William J

    David S. Sawicki and William J. Craig. 1996. The Democratization of Data: Bridging the Gap for Community Groups. Journal of the American Planning Association 62, 4 (Dec. 1996), 512–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369608975715

    1996 doi

  77. [86]

    Lost Rivers. 2024. Lost Rivers of Toronto Map. https://www.lostrivers.ca/disappearing.html

    2024

  78. [87]

    Cathrine Seidelin, Yvonne Dittrich, and Erik Grönvall. 2020. Co-designing Data Experiments: Domain Experts’ Exploration and Experimentation with self-selected Data Sources. In Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping...

    2020

  79. [88]

    James C. Scott. 1999. Seeing Like a State : How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed - University of Toronto. Yale University Press. https://librarysearch.library.utoronto.ca/discovery/fulldisplay?docid= alma991106970410406196&context=L&vid=01UTORONTO_INS...

    1999

  80. [89]

    Joe Shaw and Mark Graham. 2017. An Informational Right to the City? Code, Content, Control, and the Urbanization of Information. Antipode 49, 4 (2017), 907–927. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12312 _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/anti.12312

    2017 doi

  81. [90]

    Ashraf Shaharudin, Bastiaan van Loenen, and Marijn Janssen. 2023. Towards a Common Definition of Open Data Intermediaries. Digit. Gov.: Res. Pract. 4, 2, Article 6 (jun 2023), 21 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3585537

    2023 doi

  82. [91]

    Linnet Taylor. 2017. What is data justice? The case for connecting digital rights and freedoms globally. Big Data & Society 4, 2 (Dec. 2017), 2053951717736335. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717736335 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd

    2017 doi

  83. [92]

    Koepfler, and Kenneth R

    Katie Shilton, Jes A. Koepfler, and Kenneth R. Fleischmann. 2014. How to see values in social computing: methods for studying values dimensions. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing. ACM, 426–435. http://dl.acm.org...

    2014

  84. [93]

    Le Dantec, and Carl DiSalvo

    Anh-Ton Tran, Ashley Boone, Christopher A. Le Dantec, and Carl DiSalvo. 2022. Careful Data Tinkering. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, CSCW2, Article 431 (nov 2022), 29 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555532

    2022 doi

  85. [94]

    No More Noise Toronto. 2024. No More Noise Toronto. https://www.nomorenoisetoronto.com/

    2024

  86. [95]

    Yaacov Trope and Nira Liberman. 2010-04. Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance. 117, 2 (2010-04), 440–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963

    2010 doi

  87. [96]

    Anh-Ton Tran, Grace Guo, Jordan Taylor, Katsuki Andrew Chan, Elora Lee Raymond, and Carl Disalvo. 2024. Situating Datasets: Making Public Eviction Data Actionable for Housing Justice. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Honolulu HI...

    2024

  88. [97]

    Amy Voida, Ellie Harmon, and Ban Al-Ani. 2011. Homebrew Databases: Complexities of Everyday Information Management in Nonprofit Organizations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CHI ’11). Association for Compu...

    2011

  89. [98]

    Le Dantec, Eric Gordon, Pete Wright, and Patrick Olivier

    Vasillis Vlachokyriakos, Clara Crivellaro, Christopher A. Le Dantec, Eric Gordon, Pete Wright, and Patrick Olivier

  90. [99]

    James Merricks White. 2017. Following data threads. In Data and the City . Routledge. Num Pages: 13

    2017

  91. [100]

    Wong, Michael A

    Richmond Y. Wong, Michael A. Madaio, and Nick Merrill. 2023. Seeing Like a Toolkit: How Toolkits Envision the Work of AI Ethics. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (April 2023), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579621

    2023 doi

  92. [101]

    Green Map

    Dawn Walker and Christoph Becker. 2016. Sustainability Design: Lessons from Designing A "Green Map". Atlantis Press, 167–176. https://doi.org/10.2991/ict4s-16.2016.20 ISSN: 2352-538X

    2016 doi

  93. [102]

    Ayoung Yoon, Andrea Copeland, and Paula Jo McNally. 2018. Empowering communities with data: Role of data intermediaries for communities’ data utilization. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 55, 1 (Jan. 2018), 583–592. https://doi.org/10.1002/...

    2018

  94. [104]

    Johanna Ylipulli and João Hämäläinen. 2023. Towards Practice-oriented Framework for Digital Inequality in Smart Cities. In The 11th International Conference on Communities and Technologies (C&T) . ACM, Lahti Finland, 180–190. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: Januar...

    2023

  95. [2016]

    In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Digital Civics: Citizen Empowerment With and Through Technology. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, San Jose California USA, 1096–1099. https: //doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2886436

    2016

  96. [2023]

    Enacting Data Feminism in Advocacy Data Work. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, CSCW1, Article 47 (apr 2023), 28 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579480

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.