Inclusive yet marginalising: Symbolic empowerment through open big data in citizen science for transport planning

Abstract

The open big data paradigm has reshaped citizen engagement, promoting digital participation in scientific and policy processes. Transport planning – a field dominated by technical expertise – reveals the specialised dispositions and skills needed to navigate the politics of open big data. Using a Bourdieusian lens and a case study in Hong Kong, this paper explores citizen empowerment within the open big data landscape, focusing on the symbolic aspects of data use. As citizens gain data access, they increasingly adopt professional practices valued in transport planning, aligning with the field's evidence-based standards. Despite expanded citizen participation, findings indicate that much of this engagement remains symbolic. Industry insiders, acting as cultural intermediaries and ‘historic firsts’, symbolically empower citizens by representing them, challenging stereotypes that portray citizens as uninformed. This representation shapes a collective identity, framing citizens as legitimate political agents. Access to authorised open big data sources as symbolic capital, with field-specific linguistic practices, further enhances these intermediaries’ legitimacy. Conceptualising data competencies as part of habitus – internalised schemas of behaviour – reveals that competencies extend beyond analytic skills to include navigating, interpreting and presenting data within accepted field norms, often unconsciously. Exposure to confidential information and data, though not directly usable, becomes a crucial factor in shaping habitus, enabling intermediaries to interpret open data in ways that resonate with authorities. Ultimately, while activists seek to secure their positions in transport planning, they risk reinforcing existing power structures, limiting broader citizen inclusion. This study underscores the need to address these dynamics to foster an inclusive approach to citizen participation in data-centric fields.

Keywords

Open big data paradigm digital participation citizen science transport governance Pierre Bourdieu symbolic power

Introduction

Major policy documents emphasise the importance of inclusive, fair and evidence-based approaches. However, within the current open big data (OBD) paradigm, evidence-based practices often de-legitimise community knowledge and creativity, sidelining grassroots, bottom-up participatory initiatives (Boyes-Watson and Pranis, 2012; Broomfield and Reutter, 2022; Liu and Dijk, 2022; Smith, 2018). Transport planning exemplifies the politics of OBD, and the specialised competencies needed to engage with it effectively. Dominated by technical and administrative expertise, this field often relies on scientific research to justify decisions, sidelining other forms of knowledge and local perspectives (Lowe, 2021; Schwanen et al., 2011; Verlinghieri et al., 2024). While quantitative, empirical and technical expertise can streamline planning, it frequently excludes ordinary citizens, resulting in plans that fail to reflect community values and cultural contexts. In cities such as Hong Kong (Chan and Zhou, 2021), Auckland (Mehmood and Imran, 2021), USA (Godinho et al., 2021), London and São Paulo (Nixon and Schwanen, 2024), the digitalisation of citizen initiatives enables communities to gather and organise data, demonstrating their ability to acquire essential forms of capital – technical knowledge, data resources and collaborative networks – necessary for participation in transport policy decision-making. However, as Arnstein's (1969) Ladder of Citizen Participation suggests, such involvement often remains symbolic, with authorities retaining actual control. Citizen participation implies some redistribution of power but generally remains within the bounds of what Bourdieu (1991) would describe as symbolic empowerment. Through data, citizens can advocate, engage in discourse and hold officials accountable. Yet, Bourdieu's symbolic empowerment entails a deeper shift, granting citizens not only influence but also symbolic legitimacy within the field. This empowerment, however, is limited by existing data practices, which continue to favour quantitative, expert-driven approaches over community-focused perspectives, prioritising probability over the possibility.

The contribution of this paper refers to citizen science initiatives under the OBD paradigm within the field of urban transport planning, which encompasses research in academia and industry involving both science/engineering and social science aspects of transport (Lowe, 2021; Sun and Yin, 2017). The geographical focus of the study was Hong Kong for two reasons: (a) it is considered a global exemplar of how to implement transit-oriented development with a multi-modal public transport system that is tightly integrated with land use and urban development policy (Loo et al., 2010) and (b) it has gone through a period of extensive socio-political unrest, which has given rise to various grassroots activities that form the basis of different transport-related innovations (Au, 2022; Chan et al., 2021; Chan and Zhou, 2021). The democracy movement was well known for its digitalisation and platformisation of grassroots activities and the everyday routinisation resistance from mass protests to everyday activism (Choi, 2020; Tang and Cheng, 2022). I focus on the field of transport as it is one of the sites of being heavily politicised. The current understanding of transport planning has evolved from being primarily a data-driven exercise (Schofer and Levin, 1967) to an objective scientific process that prioritises certainty and deterministic solutions based on scientifically derived predictions (Timms, 2008). Within this planning paradigm, many citizen initiatives are criticised for their data quality and methods, resulting in their outcomes having minimal impact on decision-making by authorities. While there is extensive documentation on the theory and application of integrating scientific and indigenous/local knowledge in urban-transport planning processes for sustainable development (Nikolaeva, 2024; Smeds et al., 2023; Vigar, 2017), some countries, such as USA (Lowe, 2021) and Hong Kong (Ng and Wong, 2022), still exhibit path dependencies towards quantitative modelling and technology in transport studies and projects (Lowe, 2021; Schwanen et al., 2011).

This study examines how emerging citizen science initiatives, positioned as ‘newcomers’, strive to gain recognition and secure a place within the planning field. I adopt a Bourdieusian approach to analyse their embrace of technological practices within the OBD paradigm, as well as their potential to challenge existing power dynamics by gaining legitimacy from both the public and government. Using Hong Kong as a case, this paper reveals that the OBD paradigm legitimises authorities and advances political agendas by leaning on technocratic methods. This paradigm has also conditioned citizens to embrace big data as part of bureaucratic routines, making them reliant on government-generated data. Over time, citizens have grown accustomed to, and even dependent on, this data, complicating efforts to critically examine how it operates and what it achieves. The anonymous nature of digital participation makes data sources, presentation techniques and language increasingly important. Here, ‘cultural intermediaries’ (Bourdieu, 1984) within grassroots sectors act as ‘historic firsts’ (Simien, 2015), resembling the marginalised groups they represent symbolically reshaping perceptions about groups traditionally seen as uninformed. Government actors’ ingrained behaviours and dispositions shape the process of symbolic (mis)recognition, partly influenced by shared knowledge from non-open data that intermediaries also access. The study reveals that current citizen participation in transport planning remains largely symbolic, continuing to privilege groups already proficient in data-driven methods. Consequently, while citizen organisations gain some access, the field's bias toward quantitative expertise remains, reinforcing a narrow definition of legitimate participation and inadvertently marginalising perspectives outside this data-centric paradigm. By examining these dynamics, this paper contributes to a more nuanced understanding of how symbolic empowerment through OBD can simultaneously expand participation and reinforce existing inequalities within the transport planning field.

OBD and citizen engagement

The OBD paradigms have significantly transformed citizen initiatives and government–citizen relations (Baack, 2015; Dimas et al., 2023; Kassen, 2021; Meijer and Potjer, 2018). Open data, characterised by transparent accessibility and usability, allows citizens to engage actively in scientific endeavours. This democratisation of information aims to empower individuals to contribute meaningfully to scientific research. Such vision has been documented in American and European policy documents (European Union, 2019; The White House, 2016). Big data, with its capacity to process vast amounts of information, enhances the capabilities of citizen science initiatives. It enables the analysis of extensive datasets, leading to more collective and diversity of analysis. Citizen science, in particular, benefits from the amalgamation of OBD, fostering collaborative efforts between scientists and the public in addressing complex challenges. In this context, academic literature recognises the empowerment of citizens through OBD, facilitating their active involvement in scientific endeavours, especially in citizen science initiatives (Kassen, 2021; Meijer and Potjer, 2018).

Nevertheless, these policies have been accompanied – in rhetoric as much as design – by a strong emphasis on citizen responsibility (Kitchin, 2014; König, 2017). Citizen science initiatives repositioning citizens as central co-learners ‘within the research process by actively enabling them to explore transformative changing institutionalised research and policy systems’ (Kythreotis et al., 2019: 4). In response to the science research regimes, the grassroots has started to embracing a more scientific and systematic approach to generating impacts for social issues (Ornetzeder and Rohracher, 2013; Smith et al., 2014); however, appropriating science and technology reveals enduring challenges for citizen initiatives. The OBD paradigm, while aiming to democratise information, can inadvertently perpetuate marginalisation by imposing technical and ethical challenges on citizen participants (Chen, 2024; Cooper et al., 2021; de Sherbinin et al., 2021). Firstly, in the context of data-intensive science, data collection and management are, more than ever, a central focus of scientific research (Chen et al., 2016; Ghofrani et al., 2018). However, OBD data paradigm does not guarantee good data availability and accessibility (as not all data are open and released) are currently a major hurdle for grassroots research. As a result, grassroots research might still rely on data crowd-sourcing (Pappers et al., 2022), self-generating (Storme et al., 2022), crawling, or even hacking (Schrock, 2016), which raises concerns regarding data ethics and legitimacy. Secondly, even though the grassroots are able to obtain or generate their dataset, there are also challenges such as ensuring data quality and privacy and addressing the potential biases inherent in volunteer-based data collection (Lukyanenko et al., 2016). Thirdly, analysing data and promoting outcomes of citizen projects not only includes data literacy and technical support activities such as mentoring, financing, partnering and advice on research models (Button et al., 2020); but also advocacy roles that seek to make the contexts for citizen initiatives more favourable, such as linking laymen's local, ethnographic knowledge with scientific and technological knowledge, introducing new forms of knowledge democracy and linking to innovation policy institutions for impacts. While the recent OBD paradigm seems to offer alternative sources for data and information, however, in order to use open data effectively, citizen researchers need guidance to navigate these new data sources, software and server platforms, as well as acquire the necessary skills (Woolley et al., 2016). It also neglects the information monopoly that not only despises citizen-generated small and qualitative data and local knowledge but also potentially control information in ways designed to maintain and enhance power; and grassroots organisations actually need such ‘information power’ in dialogue with government institutions.

Bourdieusian lens on dataism

Bourdieu's approach emphasises analysing the social world as an interconnected system where individuals and structures shape each other (Grenfell, 2008). Focused on power and domination, Bourdieu explores how hierarchical social systems persist across generations, often without resistance or conscious awareness from members (Swartz, 1998). His relational perspective shifts focus from fixed entities to processes, examining how actors, groups and institutions are interconnected in networks of power. For Bourdieu (2000), society is shaped by symbolic struggles over representation and recognition (187). Activists engage in symbolic struggles to legitimise their social identity, constructing reality through new classifications and definitions. Central to this analysis is the concept of a ‘field’ – a social space where differentiation between institutions, groups and individuals plays out. In each field, actors’ positions and power depend on the distribution of capital, and they strive to maintain or enhance their status within field-specific rules and objectives, which are shaped by accumulated capital.

‘Capital’, in Bourdieu's terms, refers to resources that actors employ to pursue strategies and maintain or advance their positions within a field. Capital is versatile – it serves as a resource for action, can be accumulated, and holds exchange value (Crossley, 2001). The literature traditionally highlights economic capital (financial resources), cultural capital (taste and possession of cultural goods) and social capital (resources embedded in social ties and group memberships) as the most significant forms of capital (Sallaz and Zavisca, 2007; Schwanen et al., 2015). When capital is recognised and valued within a field, it transforms into ‘symbolic capital’, bestowing legitimacy and authority. In transport planning, data itself can serve as symbolic capital, elevating actors who possess and deploy it effectively. For example, using data from authoritative sources, such as government agencies, endows actors with an immediate sense of legitimacy, as this data are perceived as credible and unbiased. Extracting specific insights from large datasets, like predictive models of ridership patterns, can enhance symbolic capital by aligning with field norms that prioritise quantitative accuracy and foresight. Moreover, presenting data in accessible forms – charts, graphs and visualisations that conform to accepted professional standards – further strengthens an actor's perceived expertise. The symbolic value of data emerges when social agents, equipped with the tools and recognition frameworks of the field, view data as a legitimate, authoritative resource. In this way, data as symbolic capital is a resource that enables actors to enhance their status and influence within the field. By meeting established expectations of technical knowledge and quantitative insight, data confers credibility and reinforces existing hierarchies, particularly within data-driven fields like transport planning.

Bourdieu's framework provides a valuable lens for analysing dataism (Van Dijck, 2014), often understood as an ideology (Adamczyk, 2023) that promotes trust in the objectivity of quantification (e.g. through algorithms and data) and the independence of institutions employing these methods. A core belief underpinning big data practices is that large data sets offer a higher form of intelligence and knowledge that can generate insights that were previously impossible, with the aura of truth, objectivity and accuracy (Boyd and Crawford, 2012). Data, therefore, are often seen as representational artefacts which, when scaled, provide unique insights into complex phenomena (Smith, 2018). Individuals and organisations use data both to reveal hidden bodily and social dynamics and to construct and display personas, shaping how they are perceived. Bourdieu's concept of ‘habitus’ – the ingrained predispositions that guide behaviour at cognitive and bodily levels – clarifies how ideologies, like dataism, are internalised. Habitus explains why individuals act in ways aligned with embodied sensitivities they have developed through experience. Although Bourdieu does not directly link habitus to ideology, the concept helps explain how ideologies become naturalised both cognitively (where beliefs and actions feel non-ideological) and bodily (where professional experiences, like education and planning, shape specific understandings of roles and actions) (Zanotto, 2020). As Bourdieu (1990) states, ‘the analysis of objective structures […] is inseparable from the analysis of the genesis, within biological individuals, of the mental structures which are to some extent the product of the incorporation of social structures’ (14). Over time, privileged elites, possessing the means to define the symbolic realm, shape dominant values and codes that become subjectively normalised across society. This process socialises individuals, leading them to internalise beliefs and practices that align with interests outside their own. As individuals engage within various social fields, they unconsciously absorb and reproduce the rules and expectations embedded in these environments, embodying them in repeated actions. In this view, data competencies are more than just the skills to handle datasets; they also include the ability to navigate and interpret these data within the accepted norms and frameworks of the field (cf. Baack, 2015). Habitus, then, is the way society becomes deposited in persons in the form of lasting dispositions, or trained capacities and structured propensities to think, feel and act in determinant ways, guiding behaviours across diverse social contexts (Wacquant, 2016).

Bourdieusian lens on symbolic empowerment through OBD

Bourdieu's framework helps illustrate how the field of data-driven transport planning, once dominated by elite professionals, is undergoing a democratising shift, where traditional barriers to symbolic capital are increasingly accessible to the public. Education systems promoting digital literacy and data skills (Wolff et al., 2019), along with the OBD paradigm (Matheus et al., 2020), have enabled netizens and citizens to access capital that was once confined to elites with specialised knowledge or institutional authority. As citizens become more data literate and produce evidence-based insights, they gain symbolic capital associated with objectivity, accuracy and expertise – qualities highly valued in the technocratic processes that often govern transport planning. This shift enables citizens to navigate and influence the field's social structures, challenging established hierarchies and gaining recognition as legitimate and valuable participants. While it is argued by Sadowski (2019) that data as a form of capital that is distinct from, but has its roots in, economic capital, drawing on Bourdieu, this paper would argue it is of the same importance to recognise the symbolic aspects of (big) data, on how it enables empowerment of citizen participation in transport planning. This form of empowerment through data use goes beyond mere access to information and tools. Commonly, data empowers citizens by granting practical agency to advocate for their needs, participate in public discussions, or hold authorities accountable. Bourdieusian concept of symbolic empowerment, however, involves more profound changes in the social positioning of citizens. Here, they do not merely influence decision-making; they earn a form of symbolic legitimacy and authority within the field.

Bourdieu might further argue that symbolic empowerment operates through both descriptive and symbolic representation, particularly evident in ‘historic firsts’ (Alexander and Jalalzai, 2020; Simien, 2015). Descriptive representation involves representatives who demographically resemble the marginalised groups they advocate for, while symbolic representation refers to the broader social impact of such representation on beliefs and attitudes. When marginalised individuals achieve recognition in fields like transport planning, they embody qualities traditionally associated with leadership, expertise and credibility on behalf of their group. These accomplishments challenge established power dynamics, transferring symbolic capital from the individual to the broader social group they represent. This ‘first’ disrupts entrenched stereotypes and empowers the entire marginalised community by establishing their legitimacy within the social order. Bourdieu would interpret the ‘pride and psychological benefits’ (Simien, 2015: 12) felt by marginalised communities as collective symbolic capital, strengthening their collective identity and creating new potential for political agency. Similar to his concept of social capital, symbolic capital gained by such individuals indirectly benefits their community, reinforcing unity and fostering new possibilities for mobilisation and engagement within traditionally exclusive fields.

Here, Bourdieu also prompts us to consider how habitus shapes the process of symbolic empowerment within citizen-led organisations. While habitus is often seen as relatively rigid, it also evolves subtly over time through exposure to new practices and social fields. This perspective encourages us to ask who possesses the habitus that is being recognised within these fields, and how it has been historically shaped and formed over time. In grassroots contexts, intermediaries skilled in data analysis and quantitative methods help citizen groups appear knowledgeable, thereby gaining symbolic capital that enables them to participate credibly in transport planning. This leads us to question whether there is truly a shift in habitus – where citizens adopt dispositions and competencies that align with the technocratic expectations of the planning field, which prioritises data-driven insights – or if this is simply an adaptation without a fundamental change in habitus. Regardless, this emerging habitus within grassroots sectors grants citizens newfound legitimacy. Citizens who master data practices and produce credible insights acquire symbolic capital, challenging the exclusivity of professional expertise and reshaping norms in traditionally closed, top-down fields like transport planning. However, this also highlights the limitations of symbolic empowerment, as it ultimately reinforces the existing symbolic system. By privileging quantitative methods and valuing organisations that employ these approaches, the field maintains its existing structure of symbolic capital, continuing to favour groups already skilled in such expertise. Consequently, while citizen organisations gain access, the field's inherent bias toward quantitative expertise remains unchallenged, sustaining a narrow definition of legitimate participation and inadvertently marginalising perspectives that fall outside this data-centric paradigm.

Context, data and methodology

Urban and transport planning in Hong Kong operates within a top-down, elite-driven framework that prioritises economic growth and efficiency over inclusivity and public participation (Ng, 2008). This centralised system is reinforced by hierarchical government structures, a bureaucratic culture of risk aversion and a public discourse that values modernisation and smart city initiatives over alternative, people-centred approaches. While transport hobbyists and grassroots advocates have long engaged in public consultations, they often struggle for recognition, as policymakers frequently dismiss them as uninformed or lacking expertise in formal transport planning. This marginalisation reflects broader symbolic struggles, where activists lack the symbolic capital necessary to establish credibility within the field.

This article investigates multiple cases of grassroots organisations (N = 3) addressing local transport planning issues online. These advocacy groups, established within the last decade, comprise transport enthusiasts, residents and professionals in the field. Their collaborative efforts extend to working with local district councillors to address transport issues on both local and urban scales. As citizen science advocacy groups, they employ a combination of small-scale methodologies, such as questionnaire surveys, and large-scale data sources, including government-released OBD. Their projects include analysing pedestrian collision data to identify spatial clusters, conducting travel behaviour surveys in response to new railway infrastructure, and assessing accessibility inequities using road and pavement network data. Additionally, these groups evaluate transit service levels before, during and after the coronavirus pandemic to identify service reductions. To express public opinions on transport projects, they frequently submit responses through online platforms, including public notices published in the Gazette Plan. However, due to concerns related to data privacy, this article refrains from presenting identifiable data given the complexities of the current political climate.

Over the past decade, some activist groups have adopted data-driven practices, seeking to align themselves with the professional norms of the field. Activists attribute this shift to government-led open data initiatives and the digitalisation of social movements (cf. Au, 2022; Chan and Zhou, 2021; Stokols, 2023), which they view as opportunities to counter negative perceptions and enhance legitimacy. By professionalising their approach – employing data analytics, standardised methodologies and technical language – these groups attempt to bridge the gap between grassroots advocacy and formal transport expertise. However, this reliance on data-driven strategies raises critical questions about the inclusivity of citizen participation, as it risks reinforcing the dominant, expert-led, data-centric paradigm that continues to shape transport planning in Hong Kong.

Primary data were collected through semi-structured interviews, official documents and digital content from social media platforms. The dataset includes in-depth interviews with 15 respondents from grassroots organisations and two respondents in positions of power: a government officer (one of three handling recent citizen initiatives at the time of writing) and an academic researcher (with over 5 years of experience working with transport-related big datasets in Hong Kong). These interviews, conducted between April and September 2023, lasted between 90 and 120 min. Participants were identified through three methods: (1) native collaborators familiar with key figures in the grassroots movement, such as local government officials and transport consultants; (2) direct contact with administrators of Instagram advocacy groups (and email outreach for government officers and academic researchers); and (3) chain referral sampling (Biernacki and Waldorf, 1981), where interviewees referred other relevant individuals. Two recent large-scale transport research projects guided case selection: one analysing traffic injury collision data to support street redesign and another using pedestrian networks and transit service databases to monitor changes in service levels. This approach allowed for targeted participant recruitment and additional chain referrals. Interviewees included grassroots organisation members, founders, key committee members and contacts in government departments and transport consulting firms. All interviews were recorded and transcribed for analysis.

The interview data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) (Braun and Clarke, 2006, 2021; Byrne, 2022), which identifies, analyses and reports patterns across datasets. RTA's iterative and dynamic nature emphasises the researcher's active role in theme development, acknowledging the subjective aspects of analysis. This approach was particularly useful for applying Bourdieusian concepts, as the continuous engagement with data mirrors Bourdieu's emphasis on refining theory through multiple iterations (Howe and Langdon, 2002). RTA's reflexive and iterative qualities enabled a dynamic interaction between Bourdieu's theoretical concepts – such as habitus, capital and field – and the empirical data. As the analysis unfolded, these concepts were revisited, refined and applied in response to emerging patterns, reflecting Bourdieu's approach to theory development. This iterative integration of theory and data facilitated a nuanced understanding of social practices in transport planning, particularly in explaining the power dynamics of OBD through concepts like symbolic capital and habitus. The following sections present three key themes that emerged from this process: data presentation, credibility and analysis. These themes illustrate activists’ strategies for using data, with verbatim quotes included to support the arguments.

Findings

Mastering field-specific linguistic practices for data presentation

The field of transport planning, like other non-traditional professional fields such as accounting and teaching, is narrowly defined by professional certification (Myers and Banerjee, 2005). However, in online participation while being anonymous, professional degrees are unlikely to serve as symbolic capital to gain recognition from those in power. Language emerges as another sources for recognitions. Timmy, a 4-year activist, explains that government officers judge credibility based on writing, documents and emails, rather than educational background:

Language can tell whether you will be recognised when you write an email to submit concerns over transport issues through an official channel. You need to use the ‘common’ term that are used in the field. [Academic] credentials are not that important, as long as you are speaking the professional language and using those terms that can be recognised by the professions in the field. (Timmy, 4-year activist, April 2023)

Timmy highlights the importance of presentation of data, such as field-specific language, codes of practice and drawings, in gaining recognition, stating that writing emails with common terms used in the field is crucial. Academic credentials are less important than speaking the professional language and terms. For Bourdieu, language has a symbolic function and corresponds to a linguistic habitus, being a product of social conditions and adjusted discourse to a field (Bourdieu, 1984). Linguistic habitus involves socially constituted dispositions that influence how individuals speak and use language appropriately in given situations (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992). Despite the importance of language, Bourdieu cautions against assuming that language alone can lead to societal change (Cerne, 2021). This is reflected in an interview with a transport researcher, who emphasises that the professional presentation and rigour of grassroots reports often fall short of standards:

When they claim themselves as professional or research reports, I need to make judgments from my professional perspective. Their language presentation, research rigorousness, might not be up to standard. It might be better if they can articulate and synthesise their local experience and explain how it can contribute to the field by providing alternative knowledge and insight. […] We have provided open data and that should be utilised. (Academic transport researcher, 5-year experience, May 2023)

The framing of grassroots projects affects perceptions and judgments about the usefulness of findings. When grassroots groups attempt to professionalise themselves with a scientific approach, their efforts may fall short of field standards, potentially causing audiences to overlook the value of local knowledge. In Bourdieu's terms, they accumulate symbolic capital through technical terms and presentations to gain a position in the planning field, but this is often insufficient. Billy, an 8-year activist, argues that translating grassroots results into professional language should be the responsibility of professionals who have the relevant knowledge to understand and identify the contribution of grassroots work:

We are not working in the industry and there is no way for us to learn their [professional] language. We aim to provide the evidence they want to see, and be scientific, looking at the ‘larger picture’ as they always emphasise. Translating our results to their languages is their responsibility, as they are supposed to have relevant (professional) knowledge to understand our works and identify our contribution. […] Not all politicians have relevant professional background for speaking their languages, but the government cannot ignore them. Why? It is just an excuse to brush us off. (Billy, activist, 8-year experience, May 2023)

Bourdieusian theorists would highlight how language, controlled and reformed by political elites, exercises symbolic power (Bourdieu, 1991; Bourdieu et al., 1991). Language can act as a tool of domination, with social agents complicitly accepting this power, perpetuating inequalities and marginalising certain groups. As Billy's experience reveals, symbolic power through language normalises oppressive structures, rendering them legitimate and unquestionable. While politicians may overcome linguistic barriers through their symbolic capital, grassroots activists often face rejection due to their lack of such capital. However, certain groups within the grassroots sector – particularly cultural intermediaries who work in the industry while participating in grassroots activism – are more likely to bridge this gap. These intermediaries possess professional knowledge and linguistic fluency that aligns with institutional norms, enabling them to translate grassroots insights into forms recognisable and credible to authorities. This dual positioning allows intermediaries to participate more effectively, accumulating symbolic capital while amplifying the voices of grassroots groups. Yet, their role also risks reinforcing the power structures that privilege professionalised language and expertise over alternative knowledge forms.

Leveraging authorised OBD as symbolic capital

Activists have recently found more direct means to obtain symbolic capital by utilising authorised big data platforms. OBD serves as one of the crucial sources of symbolic capital in transport planning, providing activists and academics with the legitimacy needed to participate effectively. However, the challenges associated with data reliability and completeness reflect the ongoing symbolic struggles within the field. This section analyses how OBD can empower grassroots activists and academics, despite the challenges they face with data reliability and completeness. Jimmy, a grassroots activist, highlights a significant dilemma in his project on post-COVID bus service decline:

I’m working on a project about how bus services have gone downhill after COVID. The problem is, the GTFS data from the government is either in the wrong format or just plain wrong. Here's the dilemma: If I tell the government, they might not fix it, and I’ll lose my only ‘reliable’ dataset that they need as proof. But if I ignore it, my results won’t be correct. So, I’m stuck using faulty data. (Jimmy, activist, 7-year experience, August 2023)

Jimmy's situation reflects the symbolic struggles over the legitimacy and credibility of data in the field of transport planning. The government's General Transit Feed Specification data, despite its flaws, holds symbolic capital as an official source. This symbolic capital is critical for activists like Jimmy, as it confers legitimacy and credibility on their findings. However, the faulty nature of the data puts Jimmy in a difficult position. Reporting the issues might lead to the loss of this crucial symbolic capital, while ignoring them compromises the accuracy of his results. This scenario underscores the tension between the need for reliable data and the symbolic power vested in official data sources. Similarly, a transport researcher with 5 years of experience discusses the challenges of working with incomplete aggregate data:

We academics usually only get aggregate data, which isn’t always complete. We sometimes have to make assumptions to fill in the gaps. But using ‘official’ data from credible sources like the government's Big Data Portal helps maintain our credibility. (Jason, academic transport researcher, 5-year experience, May 2023)

For academics, the use of official data sources like the government's Big Data Portal is essential for maintaining symbolic capital. According to Bourdieu, symbolic capital comprises recognition, prestige and credibility, which are vital for establishing authority in a given field. By relying on data from credible sources, academics can enhance their symbolic capital, even if the data requires making assumptions to address gaps. This reliance on official data sources, despite their imperfections, reflects the broader struggle for legitimacy within the academic and professional fields. The use of OBD as symbolic capital highlights the broader power dynamics in transport planning. Official data sources hold significant symbolic power, which can either enable or constrain participation in the planning process. Grassroots activists and academics must navigate these power dynamics to gain recognition and influence. This navigation often involves a delicate balance between using flawed but officially recognised data and striving for accuracy and reliability. The impact of symbolic capital is further elucidated through an account from a government officer, Amy, commenting on a submission from an online advocacy group:

This is actually the first time we saw such massive evidence on a particular issue, and we really appreciate that. My boss really pays attention to it. (Amy, government officer, 7-year experience, September 2023)

Amy's acknowledgment highlights how habitus predisposes authorities to value rational, scientific evidence. Activists and grassroots groups gain credibility when their submissions align with these institutional expectations. This alignment is particularly evident in the role of intermediaries, often cultural insiders working in both professional and grassroots sectors. These intermediaries act as ‘historical firsts’ (Alexander and Jalalzai, 2020; Simien, 2015), symbolically empowering citizens by translating local insights into formats recognised by authorities. By bridging grassroots knowledge with institutional norms, they challenge stereotypes of citizens as uninformed while consolidating their own legitimacy. However, this process also risks reinforcing the very power structures that privilege data-centric, expert-led approaches. Ultimately, authorised OBD serves as a double-edged sword. While it empowers activists and academics by conferring symbolic capital, it also perpetuates reliance on official data practices, narrowing the definition of legitimate participation and marginalising alternative knowledge systems. The next section explores how habitus shaped by access to non-open data enables intermediaries to further support the symbolic empowerment of citizens.

Beyond data as capital: cultivating data competencies through confidentiality

It is essential to consider whether big data alone serves as symbolic capital, or if it is the combination of big data and the competencies – part of the habitus – required to interpret it (Edgerton and Roberts, 2014). Despite the inherent credibility of government data, symbolic capital is largely generated by those who possess the competencies to analyse and interpret this data effectively. Access to confidential data plays a significant role in shaping the habitus that enables individuals to interpret open data in ways that resonate and ‘make sense’ within the field. This dynamic reveals the tension between access to non-open data, open data analysis, and the distribution of information in the transport sector. Confidential data, such as ridership statistics or financial reports, is a critical resource, one that must be ‘handled carefully […] as it is related to company profits and competitiveness’ (Academic transport researcher, August 2023). Those with access to such non-open data hold a form of symbolic capital, allowing them to claim expertise and exert influence over transport policy and planning decisions:

Over the past year, our team has collected a lot of confidential information from various sources, and there are different levels of confidentiality. Some is at a level that certain groups of netizens can share, while some is of the highest confidentiality level, where even terms like ‘alleged’ or ‘possibly’ can’t be used to escape from responsibility as the topic can’t be mentioned at all. We have also obtained passenger volume data from various public transport companies, but this is similarly confidential to a certain degree. […] We are aware that, although established for less than a year, has already attracted attention from many people from public transport operators and even the Transport Department, coming from different levels of these organisations. […] We do know that some other groups, despite being established for many years, has only relied solely on the open data to fabricate ‘inaccurate’ facts, resulting in a lack of trust from multiple parties and no cooperation from others, such as authorities, transport service providers and even the citizen research network. (Billy, activist, 8-year experience, May 2023)

Bourdieu would argue that those who have access to non-open data possess a form of symbolic power, and in this context, it goes beyond mere possession of knowledge for its own sake. Instead, it is the ability to act within the transport field and influence key decisions that grant these actors power. For the activists involved in the transport industry and those managing information pages as intermediaries, access to non-open data allows them to position themselves as knowledgeable and trustworthy figures. This serves as a practical example of how non-open data plays into Bourdieu's broader analysis of symbolic capital and how the dissemination of information reinforces social hierarchies. As the quote illustrates, members of the information page have been able to gather confidential information from various sources, including transport companies and government departments. This privileged access enables them to share information that is ‘more accurate or informed’ than what is available to the general public, thereby elevating their status as credible authorities within the field of transport. The comparison they draw between themselves and other groups, whom they accuse of disseminating ‘inaccurate’ information based on less reliable sources like netizens, is an example of how they use their access to confidential data to construct symbolic boundaries. They position themselves as a trusted entity, while discrediting other groups that do not have the same access or institutional ties.

However, we should move beyond viewing data merely as capital. Legitimacy is not solely derived from access to data but also from habitus shaped by institutional ties and the ability to interpret and use data within the broader power structures governing the transport sector. While non-open data and the information derived from it are not directly recognised as legitimate for use, they enable individuals to filter unrecognised information derived from open data. What grants legitimacy is not just confidential data or authorised OBD as symbolic capital, but the habitus cultivated through exposure to such data. This habitus aligns activists with powerful stakeholders, such as transport companies and government agencies, enabling them to extract and present insights from OBD in ways that resonate with these institutions. This alignment reinforces their legitimacy, granting them influence that other groups who rely solely on public or crowd-sourced information. Activists managing information platforms highlight their ability to attract recognition from key stakeholders, including individuals at various levels of public transport operators and authorities. Such recognition signifies trust from those in power and further solidifies their position within the field. This trust also provides social capital, amplifying their influence. By contrast, groups without access to confidential data often rely on publicly available information, which activists dismiss as unreliable or ‘fabricated’. Cultural intermediaries’ ability to access, interpret and indirectly extract insights from confidential data via open data grants them prestige. However, this prestige is deeply intertwined with their institutional connections and how they are perceived by those in authority, further reinforcing their influence and symbolic capital within the field.

Conclusion and discussion

In examining the field of data practices in transport planning, Bourdieusian concepts (Table 1) provide a valuable framework for understanding the politics of data within the field. The first empirical section emphasises the importance of data presentation – such as language, charts and figures – whose schemas and techniques are internalised by intermediaries and are critical for effective participation. The second empirical section explores the symbolic capital derived from authorised OBD, examining how activists navigate the paradox between the accuracy and legitimacy of government-sanctioned data. The final empirical section highlights how habitus is shaped by access to confidential data and information, enabling activists to interpret and analyse OBD in ways that align with confidential insights. This habitus, developed through exposure to non-open data and industry practices, supports the accumulation of symbolic capital by analysing and interpreting open data in ways that resonate with authorities. Collectively, these findings reveal that while activists aim to secure a position within the planning field, they inadvertently reinforce the very power structures that grant them symbolic capital. This highlights the limitations of citizen engagement enabled by the OBD paradigm. Despite the expansion of citizen involvement, much of this engagement remains symbolic, constrained by entrenched power structures that privilege specific forms of expertise and institutional alignment over diverse, community-driven perspectives.

Table 1.

Bourdieusian key concepts and findings in this study.

Key concept	Description	Relevance to data-driven transport planning	Key findings
Field	A structured social space governed by specific rules, hierarchies, and forms of capital, where individuals and institutions compete for power and recognition.	The transport planning field is shaped by technical expertise and data-centric norms, establishing the framework for accepted knowledge and authority.	The dominance of technocratic expertise marginalises non-technical perspectives, limiting diversity in planning discussions and reinforcing a narrow definition of legitimate knowledge.
Habitus	Internalised dispositions, behaviours and perceptions shaped by social experiences, guiding how individuals perceive and interpret data.	Shapes how professionals and citizen participants establish credibility, influencing who is recognised as knowledgeable in transport planning.	Activists, particularly intermediaries, who develop a habitus aligned with field norms through industrial experience, gain legitimacy but reinforce a data-centric paradigm. Exposure to confidential data further strengthens this habitus, allowing them to interpret open data in ways that resonate with authorities.
Symbolic capital	Prestige and legitimacy within a field, allowing individuals or groups to influence decision-making.	Traditionally held by professionals, but citizen data initiatives challenge this exclusivity by generating insights from government-authorised data.	Citizen groups accumulate symbolic capital through data-driven contributions, gaining recognition but still operating within the dominant technocratic framework.
Symbolic struggle (for representation)	The contestation over visibility and credibility, where marginalised groups seek recognition and influence within a field.	Citizen-led initiatives challenge traditional norms of credibility and expertise in transport planning.	Citizen initiatives reshape perceptions of expertise, demonstrating that laypersons can contribute valuable insights, though traditional authority structures remain intact.
Symbolic empowerment	The process through which marginalised groups gain legitimacy and influence, often by adopting dominant field practices.	Occurs when citizen groups, particularly ‘historic firsts’, use data practices to engage effectively with policymakers.	While data literacy enhances citizen legitimacy, the prioritisation of quantitative expertise within the field limits full democratisation and alternative knowledge recognition.

This paper also theoretically contributes to the conceptualisation of data as a form of capital. While Sadowski (2019) argues that data are a type of capital distinct from, yet rooted in, economic capital, this paper, drawing on Bourdieu, emphasises the symbolic aspects of data. It explores how data enables symbolic empowerment for citizen participation in transport planning while also reinforcing social exclusions for those lacking data competencies. This paper suggests the necessity of incorporation with Bourdieu's interconnected concepts of habitus and field (Holt, 2008). Capital derives its value within specific social fields governed by unique rules and forces that shape relational positions. Neglecting the concept of field misses opportunities to examine how social structures influence relationships, dynamics within fields and the rules governing capital exchange. Similarly, overlooking habitus limits our understanding of how objective structures become internalised, shaping embodied dispositions that adapt to contextual conditions and structural positions over time. Using the concepts of habitus and field, this paper highlights how competencies – internalised schemes of perception, understanding and the ability to interpret and analyse data (i.e. accumulate symbolic capitals from data) – are unevenly distributed through socialisation in the transport planning field. Habitus reflects the internalisation of the social order, which in turn reproduces that order within the fields of transport planning.

The OBD paradigm in citizen science within transport planning reveals a complex interplay of symbolic power and social structures. While OBD offers grassroots groups pathways to gain recognition and influence, it often reinforces existing power hierarchies and social exclusions. Achieving truly inclusive transport planning requires addressing the deep-rooted inequities embedded within current data-driven frameworks. Bourdieu's insights prompt reflections on the foundations of empowerment, revealing a tension between symbolic empowerment and marginalisation. Beyond technical skills (Williamson, 2015) and the operational structures to engage citizens (Broomfield and Reutter, 2022; Godinho et al., 2021), OBD practices raise fundamental questions about the limits of participation. Building on Arnstein's (1969) critique, the paper uses Bourdieu's analysis to explore how, while citizen participation may symbolically appear to expand, the data-centric approach privileges quantitative knowledge and technical expertise, marginalising voices that do not align with these frameworks. Those who successfully engage in OBD planning often share similar habitus with planners, reflecting similar industrial backgrounds and access to information. As a result, grassroots and citizen-led groups with limited non-open data access or literacy skills are excluded from meaningful participation, further entrenching inequalities in planning. This study highlights that competencies extend beyond technical data skills to encompass interpretative actions that align with planners’ habitus (cf. Williamson, 2015). A shift toward a more equitable approach requires valuing diverse and culturally grounded perspectives. Recognising the socially constructed nature of OBD (Danaher et al., 2017; Mulder et al., 2016) enables the creation of spaces that break the interpretative monopoly of powerful agents (Baack, 2015; Gabrys et al., 2016). This shift moves away from viewing data as neutral and authoritative, instead advocating for a pragmatic approach of ‘just good enough data’ (Gabrys et al., 2016), allowing community-driven knowledge to play a meaningful role in shaping transport policy.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I express my gratitude to the handling editor, Prof. Matt Zook, and three referees for their thoughtful and constructive comments and suggestions. Any errors of fact are solely the responsibility of the author. This research is supported by the Graduate Student Research Grants at St Anne's College, University of Oxford.

ORCID iD

Tommy Ho-Yin Chan

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Adamczyk

(2023) Communicating dataism. Review of Communication 23: 4–20.

Alexander

Jalalzai

(2020) Symbolic empowerment and female heads of states and government: A global, multilevel analysis. Politics Groups, and Identities 8: 24–43.

Arnstein

(1969) A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35: 216–224.

(2022) Protest, pandemic, & platformisation in Hong Kong: Towards cities of alternatives. Digital Geography and Society 3: 100043.

Baack

(2015) Datafication and empowerment: How the open data movement re-articulates notions of democracy, participation, and journalism. Big Data & Society 2: 205395171559463.

Biernacki

Waldorf

(1981) Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods & Research 10: 141–163.

Bourdieu

(1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. New York: Routledge.

Bourdieu

(1990) In Other Words: Essays towards a Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bourdieu

(1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.

10.

Bourdieu

(2000) Pascalian Meditations. Cambridge: Blackwell.

11.

Bourdieu

Chamboredon

J-C

Passeron

J-C

(1991) The Craft of Sociology: Epistemological Preliminaries. New York: Walter de Gruyter.

12.

Bourdieu

Wacquant

LJD

(1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge: Polity.

13.

Boyd

Crawford

(2012) Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society 15: 662–679.

14.

Boyes-Watson

Pranis

(2012) Science cannot fix this: The limitations of evidence-based practice. Contemporary Justice Review 15: 265–275.

15.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3: 77–101.

16.

Braun

Clarke

(2021) One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology 18: 328–352.

17.

Broomfield

Reutter

(2022) In search of the citizen in the datafication of public administration. Big Data & Society 9(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517221089302.

18.

Button

Chambers

Lawrence

, et al. (2020) Grassroots training for reproducible science: A consortium-based approach to the empirical dissertation. Psychological Learning and Teaching 19: 77–90.

19.

Byrne

(2022) A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality & Quantity 56: 1391–1412.

20.

Cerne

(2021) Speaking of business ethics: Bourdieu and market morality as a discursive practice. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-021-00333-7.

21.

Chan

H-Y

Chen

, et al. (2021) COVID-19, community response, public policy, and travel patterns: A tale of Hong Kong. Transport Policy 106: 173–184.

22.

Chan

H-Y

Zhou

(2021) Research notes: Social movement revealing opportunities for grassroots transport initiatives: Lessons from Hong Kong. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies 14: 50–70.

23.

Chen

Susilo

, et al. (2016) The promises of big data and small data for travel behavior (aka human mobility) analysis. Transportation research. Part C, Emerging Technologies 68: 285–299.

24.

Chen

TT-Y

(2024) Strong or thin digital democracy? The democratic implications of Taiwan’s open government data policy in the 2010s. Big Data & Society 11(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517241296038.

25.

Choi

(2020) When protests and daily life converge: The spaces and people of Hong Kong’s anti-extradition movement. Critical Anthropology 40(2): 0308275X2090832. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275x20908322.

26.

Cooper

Rasmussen

Jones

(2021) Perspective: The power (Dynamics) of open data in citizen science. Frontiers Climate 3: 637037. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.637037.

27.

Crossley

(2001) The phenomenological habitus and its construction. Theory and Society 30: 81–120.

28.

Danaher

Hogan

Noone

, et al. (2017) Algorithmic governance: Developing a research agenda through the power of collective intelligence. Big Data & Society 4: 205395171772655.

29.

de Sherbinin

Bowser

Chuang

T-R

, et al. (2021) The critical importance of citizen science data. Frontiers Climate 3: 650760. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.650760.

30.

Dimas

Goldkind

Konrad

(2023) Big ideas, small data: Opportunities and challenges for data science and the social services sector. Big Data & Society 10: 205395172311710.

31.

Edgerton

Roberts

(2014) Cultural capital or habitus? Bourdieu and beyond in the explanation of enduring educational inequality. Theory and Research in Education 12: 193–220.

32.

European Union (2019) Empowering people with open data [WWW Document]. Data stories. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/en/publications/datastories/empowering-people-open-data#:∼:text=With open data%2C translating data,access data can gain insights.&text=Insights derived from open data,citizens to make informed decisions.

33.

Gabrys

Pritchard

Barratt

(2016) Just good enough data: Figuring data citizenships through air pollution sensing and data stories. Big Data & Society 3(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679677.

34.

Ghofrani

Goverde

RMP

, et al. (2018) Recent applications of big data analytics in railway transportation systems: A survey. Transportation research. Part C, Emerging Technologies 90: 226–246.

35.

Godinho

Borda

Kariotis

, et al. (2021) Knowledge co-creation in participatory policy and practice: Building community through data-driven direct democracy. Big Data & Society 8(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211019430.

36.

Grenfell

(2008) Pierre Bourdieu: Key Concepts. London: Acumen Publishing Limited. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/UPO9781844654031.

37.

Holt

(2008) Embodied social capital and geographic perspectives: Performing the habitus. Progress in Human Geography 32: 227–246.

38.

Howe

Langdon

(2002) Towards a reflexive planning theory. Planning Theory 1: 209–225.

39.

Kassen

(2021) Understanding motivations of citizens to reuse open data: Open government data as a philanthropic movement. Innovation 23: 44–70.

40.

Kitchin

(2014) Big data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big Data & Society 1: 205395171452848.

41.

König

(2017) The place of conditionality and individual responsibility in a “data-driven economy”. Big Data & Society 4: 205395171774241.

42.

Kythreotis

Mantyka-Pringle

Mercer

, et al. (2019) Citizen social science for more integrative and effective climate action: a science-policy perspective. Frontiers in Environmental Science 7: 10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00010.

43.

Liu

Dijk

(2022) How more data reinforces evidence-based transport policy in the short and long-term: Evaluating a policy pilot in two Dutch cities. Transport Policy 128: 166–178.

44.

Loo

BPY

Chen

Chan

ETH

(2010) Rail-based transit-oriented development: Lessons from New York City and Hong Kong. Landscape Urban Planning 97: 202–212.

45.

Lowe

(2021) Undone science, funding, and positionality in transportation research. Transport Reviews 41: 192–209.

46.

Lukyanenko

Parsons

Wiersma

(2016) Emerging problems of data quality in citizen science. Conservation Biology 30: 447–449.

47.

Matheus

Janssen

Maheshwari

(2020) Data science empowering the public: Data-driven dashboards for transparent and accountable decision-making in smart cities. Government Information Quarterly 37: 101284.

48.

Mehmood

Imran

(2021) Digital social innovation and civic participation: Toward responsible and inclusive transport planning. European Planning Studies 29: 1870–1885.

49.

Meijer

Potjer

(2018) Citizen-generated open data: An explorative analysis of 25 cases. Government Information Quarterly 35: 613–621.

50.

Mulder

Ferguson

Groenewegen

, et al. (2016) Questioning Big Data: Crowdsourcing crisis data towards an inclusive humanitarian response. Big Data & Society 3(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716662054.

51.

Myers

Banerjee

(2005) Toward greater heights for planning: Reconciling the differences between profession, practice, and academic field. Journal of the American Planning Association 71: 121–129.

52.

(2008) From government to governance? Politics of planning in the first decade of the Hong Kong special administrative region. Planning Theory and Practice 9: 165–185.

53.

Wong

(2022) Spatial planning for smart sustainable development? Plan. Theory into Practice 23: 759–798.

54.

Nikolaeva

(2024) The politics of non-knowing, smart technology and just mobility transitions: A case study and research agenda. Environment and Planning F. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/26349825241228591.

55.

Nixon

Schwanen

(2024) Community smarts in grassroots initiatives to support cycling and walking in large urban areas. Journal of Urban Technology 31: 9–28.

56.

Ornetzeder

Rohracher

(2013) Of solar collectors, wind power, and car sharing: Comparing and understanding successful cases of grassroots innovations. Global Environmental Change 23: 856–867.

57.

Pappers

Keserü

De Wilde

(2022) Evaluating citizen science data: A citizen observatory to measure cyclists’ waiting times. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 14: 100624.

58.

Sadowski

(2019) When data is capital: Datafication, accumulation, and extraction. Big Data & Society 6(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718820549.

59.

Sallaz

Zavisca

(2007) Bourdieu in American sociology, 1980–2004. Annual Review of Sociology 33: 21–41.

60.

Schofer

Levin

(1967) The urban transportation planning process. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 1: 185–197.

61.

Schrock

(2016) Civic hacking as data activism and advocacy: A history from publicity to open government data. New Media and Society 18: 581–599.

62.

Schwanen

Banister

Anable

(2011) Scientific research about climate change mitigation in transport: A critical review. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 45: 993–1006.

63.

Schwanen

Lucas

Akyelken

, et al. (2015) Rethinking the links between social exclusion and transport disadvantage through the lens of social capital. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 74: 123–135.

64.

Simien

(2015) Historic Firsts: How Symbolic Empowerment Changes U.S. Politics. New York: Oxford University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199314171.001.0001.

65.

Smeds

Verlinghieri

Kocsis

, et al. (2023) ‘Seeing like a citizen’: Rethinking city street transformations through the lens of epistemic justice. Planning Theory and Practice 24(5): 697–729.

66.

Smith

Fressoli

Thomas

(2014) Grassroots innovation movements: Challenges and contributions. Journal of Cleaner Production 63: 114–124.

67.

Smith

(2018) Data doxa: The affective consequences of data practices. Big Data & Society 5(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717751551.

68.

Stokols

(2023) The insurgent smart city: How a social movement created an alternative imaginary of the smart city. Journal of Urban Affairs: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2023.2216887.

69.

Storme

Benoit

Van de Weghe

, et al. (2022) Citizen science and the potential for mobility policy – introducing the bike barometer. Case Studies on Transport Policy 10: 1539–1549.

70.

Sun

Yin

(2017) Discovering themes and trends in transportation research using topic modeling. Transportation Research. Part C, Emerging Technologies 77: 49–66.

71.

Swartz

(1998) Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.

72.

Tang

Cheng

MWT

(2022) The politicization of everyday life: Understanding the impact of the 2019 anti-extradition law amendment bill protests on pro-democracy protesters’ political participation in Hong Kong. Critical Asian Studies 54: 128–148.

73.

The White House (2016) Open data: Empowering Americans to make data-driven decisions [WWW Document]. USA.gov. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/02/05/open-data-empowering-americans-make-data-driven-decisions.

74.

Timms

(2008) Transport models, philosophy and language. Transportation (Amst) 35: 395–410.

75.

Van Dijck

(2014) Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society 12: 197–208.

76.

Verlinghieri

Haines-Doran

Marsden

, et al. (2024) The role of funding in the ‘performative decarbonisation’ of transport in England. Political Geography 109: 103053.

77.

Vigar

(2017) The four knowledges of transport planning: Enacting a more communicative, trans-disciplinary policy and decision-making. Transport Policy 58: 39–45.

78.

Wacquant

(2016) A concise genealogy and anatomy of habitus. The Sociological Review 64: 64–72.

79.

Williamson

(2015) Educating the smart city: Schooling smart citizens through computational urbanism. Big Data & Society 2(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715617783.

80.

Wolff

Gooch

Cavero

, et al. (2019) Removing barriers for citizen participation to urban innovation. In: The Hackable City. Singapore: Springer Singapore, pp. 153–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2694-3_8.

81.

Woolley

McGowan

Teare

HJA

, et al. (2016) Citizen science or scientific citizenship? Disentangling the uses of public engagement rhetoric in national research initiatives. BMC Medical Ethics 17: 33.

82.

Zanotto

(2020) The role of discourses in enacting neoliberal urbanism: Understanding the relationship between ideology and discourse in planning. Planning Theory 19: 104–126.