Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Jennifer O. Burrell

dblp:199/2983 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2017
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Collaborative and social computing · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Collaborative and social computing
civic engagement
0.312017
Empowered Participation: How Citizens Use Technology in Local Governance · CHI 2017
Collaborative and social computing › civic engagement
civic technology
0.312017
Empowered Participation: How Citizens Use Technology in Local Governance · CHI 2017

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

longitudinal study · 0.3ethnographic study · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2017 Empowered Participation: How Citizens Use Technology in Local Governance
abstract
The partnership between local residents and city officials to inform policy and decision-making about government resources, or participatory governance, has been extensively studied. In addition to numerous ethnographic studies about how citizens engage in-person, there has been increased focus in HCI to understand the impact of technology on citizen participation in local governance. Building upon those studies, this paper provides unique insight from a 3-year longitudinal study on the use of online tools that were organically adapted by citizens to engage in local governance in three diverse Chicago neighborhoods. Though the responsiveness of government officials varied across communities, our results suggest that citizens use technology to heighten the visibility of their concerns, to support mechanisms of government accountability, and to provide various options for resident participation in local governance. We argue that while communities may be effective in their use of ICTs, technology may not increase their political power.
Sheena Lewis Erete, Jennifer O. Burrell
CHI2