Even as researchers recognize smart cities as sociotechnological assemblages, the attractiveness of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) continues to drive cities towards automating urban process and analysis. Rather than arguing whether researchers should automate their analysis, we are interested in identifying where non-automated, manual judgement calls are made and the analysis is more subjective than presented. We examine topic modelling, an ML method, in an analysis of applications to a pan-Canadian smart cities grant competition. We document 11 steps in topic modelling from data collection to interpretation. At each step, including the choice of the topic modelling method, some degree of human intervention is required. We draw on human-centred ML research to argue for a greater recognition of the role of humans-as-researchers to preclude further uncritical adoption of AI/ML to research smart cities.
| INTRODUC TI ONSmart cities, through their sensors and software dashboards, produce enormous volumes, velocities and varieties of real-time streaming data. Such data come in large part from volunteered geographic information (VGI), whether that is from mobile devices as urban residents traverse space-time, or are made available from private services like Uber. We have created new methods (e.g., predictive analytics) and new sciences (e.g., urban science, data science) to take advantage of these data as a window into the city. While artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ ML) algorithms can analyse the vast amounts of data in the smart city, the methods also reinforce approaches that reify automation, not only in the management but also in the understanding of the city. This aligns with the long-standing association of "smartness" with the assumption that technology can improve urban functioning, despite the gradual transition from a technologically deterministic paradigm towards urban sustainability and well-being (Albino, Berardi, & Dangelico, 2015;Batty, 2013; Goodspeed, 2015). Municipalities continue to credit technologies with the ability to transform cities into places of high efficiency and innovation (Marshall, 2021). Kandt and Batty (2021) address the epistemological problems of urban data analytics and, by extension smart cities, both of which "can be automated with little human intervention" (Kandt & Batty, 2021, p. 1). They argue that it is doubtful whether big data can provide us with a general and in-depth understanding of urban problems. Big data solve problems on the surface; not why they happen. Urban data analytics offers a simple solution to urban problems, which have long been called wicked problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Despite a desire by some researchers and practitioners for straightforward answers, a wicked problem cannot be reduced to a single cause; the problem is incomplete and conflicting in understanding, and lacking a straightforward presentation. Instead of treating immediate symptoms of city problems, we should try to qualitatively understand why cer...