2021/04/06 Andreas Jungherr

Syllabus: Governance of Technology

From summer 2021 onwards, I will start implementing and refining the course program offered by the Chair for the Governance of Complex and Innovative Technological Systems at the Institute for Political Science at the University of Bamberg. These courses are designed to prepare students to analyze and improve the ways in which societies, organizations, and people engage with, try to steer, and adapt to technological change. These courses will address:

  • approaches to the governance of technology;
  • attitudes toward technologies, risk perception, and persuasion.
  • These general topics will be illustrated with courses focusing on specific areas of technological change, namely:

  • digital transformation;
  • artificial intelligence;
  • energy transition and climate change.
  • To help students address these topics systematically, there will also be a set of courses focusing on specific methods and their application to these questions and topics:

  • experimental and survey research;
  • computational social science.
  • This program will unfold over the next few semesters. Naturally, there will be shifts from the original concept once it becomes clear what building blocks are working and which are missing. In this process, the summer semester 2021 will provide an important first step.

    In this semester, I will be teaching for the first time a course on the Governance of Technology. The goal of the course is to provide students a broad overview of questions and cases illustrating the actors, areas, challenges, and opportunities associated with the governance of technology. In designing the course, I largely treated the governance of technology as a specific area in the governance and analysis of other policy areas. The course therefor deviates somewhat from other courses in this area following the sociology of sociotechnical systems (STS) approach. Depending on the lessons learned during this semester, I will use this course as a foundation for an introductory lecture series in the winter term 2021/2. Any feedback is therefor extremely valuable and helpful.

    Course Description

    Societies are shaped by technological change. This presents them with new tasks. Which direct and indirect effects of technological change will occur or are to be expected? How can these be identified at an early stage and, if necessary, controlled? How does the population react to technological change? Who decides on the framework conditions for the development, provision and use of technologies? These are only a few of the questions from the area of technology governance. This seminar gives an overview of the challenges of societal control of technological change, introduces controlling actors and structures and discusses direct intervention options using the example of acceptance and innovation promotion. This is illustrated using different technology areas, such as artificial intelligence, climate change, pandemics and bio-tech.

    [Syllabus, German]

    Session Overview

  • Week 1: What is governance?
  • Week 2: Governance of technology
  • Week 3: States
  • Week 4: Markets
  • Week 5: Networks
  • Week 6: Participation
  • Week 7: Learning
  • Week 8: Discourses
  • Week 9: Acceptance of technology and risk perceptions
  • Week 10: Climate change
  • Week 11: Artificial intelligence (AI)
  • Week 12: Discussion of open questions and essays
  • Detailed Session Plan

    What is governance?

    Mandatory readings

  • Mark Bevir (2012). “What is governance?” In: Governance: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–15.
  • Mark Bevir (2012). “Organizational Governance”. In: Governance: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 16–36.
  • Background readings

  • Mark Bevir, ed. (2011). The SAGE Handbook of Governance. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  • Mark Bevir (2012). Governance: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • David Levi-Faur, ed. (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.001.0001.
  • Governance of technology

    Mandatory readings

  • W. Brian Arthur (2009). “Combination and Structure”. In: The Nature of Technology: What it is and how it Evolves. New York: Free Press, pp. 27–43.
  • Susanna Borrás (2012). “Three Tensions in the Governance Of Science and Technology”. In: The Oxford Handbook of Governance. Ed. by David Levi-Faur. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 429–440. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0030.
  • Background readings

  • W. Brian Arthur (2009). The Nature of Technology: What it is and how it Evolves. New York: Free Press.
  • Catherine Lyall and Joyce Tait, eds. (2005). New Modes of Governance: Developing an Integrated Policy Approach to Science, Technology, Risk and the Environment.Farnham: Ashgate Publishing. DOI: 10.4324/9781315248042.
  • Eri Bertsou and Daniele Caramani, eds. (2020). The Technocratic Challenge to Democracy. London: Routledge.
  • Eric Schatzberg (2018). Technology: Critical History of a Concept. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Presentations

  • Nihit Goyal, Michael Howlett, and Araz Taeihagh (2021). “Why and how does the regulation of emerging technologies occur? Explaining the adoption of the EU General Data Protection Regulation using the multiple streams framework”. In: Regulation & Governance. DOI: 10.1111/rego.12387.
  • Stephen Turner (2001). “What is the Problem with Experts?” In: Social Studies of Science 31.1, pp. 123–149. DOI: 10.1177/030631201031001007.
  • States

    Mandatory readings

  • Araz Taeihagh, M. Ramesh, and Michael Howlett (2021). “Assessing the regulatory challenges of emerging disruptive technologies”. In: Regulation & Governance. DOI: 10.1111/rego.12392.
  • Susana Borrás and Jakob Edler (2020). “The roles of the state in the governance of socio-technical systems’ transformation”. In: Research Policy 49.5. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2020.103971.
  • Background readings

  • Roger Brownsword, Eloise Scotford, and Karen Yeung, eds. (2017). The Oxford Handbook of Law, Regulation and Technology. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Henry Farrell and Abraham L. Newman (2019). Of Privacy and Power: The Transatlantic Struggle over Freedom and Security. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Eden Medina (2011). Cybernetic Revolutionaries: Technology and Politics in Allende’s Chile. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  • Benjamin Peters (2016). How Not to Network a Nation: The Uneasy History of the Soviet Internet. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  • Presentations

  • Alberto Asquer and Inna Krachkovskaya (2020). “Uncertainty, institutions and regulatory responses to emerging technologies: CRISPR Gene editing in the US and the EU (2012–2019)”. In: Regulation & Governance. DOI: 10.1111/rego.12335.
  • Abraham L. Newman and David Bach (2004). “Self-Regulatory Trajectories in the Shadow of Public Power: Resolving Digital Dilemmas in Europe and the United States”. In: Governance 17.3, pp. 387–413. DOI: 10.1111/j.0952-1895.2004.00251.x.
  • Qiang Zhi and Margaret M. Pearson (2017). “China’s Hybrid Adaptive Bureaucracy: The Case of the 863 Program for Science and Technology”. In: Governance 30.3, pp. 407–424. DOI: 10.1111/gove.12245.
  • Markets

    Mandatory readings

  • Steven Bernstein and Benjamin Cashore (2007). “Can non-state global governance be legitimate? An analytical framework”. In: Regulation & Governance 1.4, pp. 347–371. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2007.00021.x.
  • Background readings

  • Charles E. Lindblom (2001). The Market System: What It Is, How It Works, and What To Make of It. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Steven K. Vogel (2018). Marketcraft: How Governments Make Markets Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190699857.001.0001.
  • Presentations

  • Mallory Elise Flowers, Daniel C. Matisoff, and Douglas S. Noonan (2020). “In the LEED: Racing to the Top in Environmental Self-Regulation”. In: Business Strategy and the Environment 29.6, pp. 2842–2856. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2547.
  • Hamish van der Ven (2018). “Gatekeeper power: understanding the influence of lead firms over transnational sustainability standards”. In: Review of International Political Economy 25.5, pp. 624–646. DOI: 10.1080/09692290.2018.1490329.
  • Networks

    Mandatory readings

  • Jacob Torfing (2012). “Governance Networks”. In: The Oxford Handbook of Governance. Ed. by David Levi-Faur. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 99–112. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0007.
  • Background readings

  • David Easley and Jon Kleinberg (2010). Networks, Crowds, and Markets: Reasoning About a Highly Connected World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511761942.
  • Martin Kilduff and Wenpin Tsai (2003). Social Networks and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  • Grahame F. Thompson (2003). Between Hierarchies and Markets: The Logic and Limits of Network Forms of Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198775270.001.0001.
  • Presentations

  • Lasse Folke Henriksen and Stefano Ponte (2018). “Public orchestration, social networks, and transnational environmental governance: Lessons from the aviation industry”. In: Regulation & Governance 12.1, pp. 23–45. DOI: 10.1111/rego.12151.
  • Reut Snir and Gilad Ravid (2016). “Global nanotechnology regulatory governance from a network analysis perspective”. In: Regulation & Governance 10.4, pp. 314–334. DOI: 10.1111/rego.12093.
  • Participation

    Mandatory readings

  • Chris Ansell (2012). “Collaborative Governance”. In: The Oxford Handbook of Governance. Ed. by David Levi-Faur. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 498–511. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0035.
  • Background readings

  • Cristina Lafont (2020). Democracy Without Shortcuts: A Participatory Conception of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198848189.001.0001.
  • Frank Fischer (2012). “Participatory Governance: From Theory To Practice”. In: The Oxford Handbook of Governance. Ed. by David Levi-Faur. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 457–471. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0032.
  • Yannis Papadopoulos (2012). “The Democratic Quality Of Collaborative Governance”. In: The Oxford Handbook of Governance. Ed. by David Levi-Faur. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 512–526. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0036.
  • Presentations

  • Thomas C. Beierle (2002). “The Quality of Stakeholder-Based Decisions”. In: Risk Analysis 22.4, pp. 739–749. DOI: 10.1111/0272-4332.00065.
  • Mark T. Imperial (2005). “Using Collaboration as a Governance Strategy: Lessons From Six Watershed Management Programs”. In: Administation & Society 37.3, pp. 281–320. DOI: 10.1177/0095399705276111.
  • Learning

    Mandatory readings

  • Fabrizio Gilardi and Claudio M. Radaelli (2012). “Governance and Learning”. In: The Oxford Handbook of Governance. Ed. by David Levi-Faur. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 155–168. URL: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0011.
  • Background readings

  • Nancy Cartwright and Jeremy Hardie (2012). Evidence-Based Policy: A Practical Guide to Doing It Better. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • John Kay and Mervyn King (2020). Radical Uncertainty: Decision-Making Beyond the Numbers. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
  • Hélène Landemore and Jon Elster, eds. (2012). Collective wisdom: principles and mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Karl E. Weick and Kathleen M. Sutcliffe (2001). Managing the Unexpected: Assuring High Performance in an Age of Complexity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Presentations

  • Joannette J. Bos and Rebekah R. Brown (2012). “Governance experimentation and factors of success in socio-technical transitions in the urban water sector”. In: Technological Forecasting & Social Change 79.7, pp. 1340–1353. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.006.
  • Jens Newig et al. (2016). “Exploring governance learning: How policymakers draw on evidence, experience and intuition in designing participatory flood risk planning”. In: Environmental Science & Policy 55.3, pp. 353–360. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.020.
  • Zhilong Tian et al. (2017). “How to get evidence? The role of government–business interaction in evidence-based policy-making for the development of Internet of Things industry in China”. In: Policy Studies 38.1, pp. 1–20. DOI: 10.1080/01442872.2016.1161180.
  • Discourses

    Mandatory readings

  • William A. Gamson and Andre Modigliani (1989). “Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach”. In: American Journal of Sociology 95.1, pp. 1–37. DOI: 10.1086/229213.
  • Background readings

  • Maarten A. Hajer (1997). The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/019829333X.001.0001.
  • Erik Hans Klijn and Iris Korthagen (2018). “Governance and Media Attention: A Research Agenda About How Media Affect (Network) Governance Processes”. In: Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 1.2, pp. 103–113. DOI: 10.1093/ppmgov/gvx004.
  • Sarah B. Pralle (2009). “Agenda-setting and climate change”. In: Environmental Politics 18.5, pp. 781–799. DOI: 10.1080/09644010903157115.
  • Presentations

  • Deborah G. Johnson and Mario Verdicchio (2017). “Reframing AI Discourse”. In: Minds and Machines 27, pp. 575–590. DOI: 10.1007/s11023-017-9417-6.
  • Lukas Hermwille (2016). “The role of narratives in socio-technical transitions—Fukushima and the energy regimes of Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom”. In: Energy Research & Social Science 11, pp. 237–246. DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2015.11.001.
  • Peter Weingart, Anita Engels, and Petra Pansegrau (2000). “Risks of communication: discourses on climate change in science, politics, and the mass media”. In: Public Understanding of Science 9.3, pp. 261–283. DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/304.
  • Acceptance of technology and risk perceptions

    Mandatory readings

  • Stephen Hilgartner, J. Benjamin Hurlbut, and Sheila Jasanoff (2021). “Was “science” on the ballot?” In: Science 371.6532, pp. 893–894. DOI: 10 . 1126/science.abf8762.
  • Joseph Rand and Ben Hoen (2017). “Thirty years of North American wind energy acceptance research: What have we learned?” In: Energy Research & Social Science 29, pp. 135–148. DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.019.
  • Background readings

  • Icek Ajzen (2005). Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior. 2nd ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
  • Jed J. Cohen, Johannes Reichl, and Michael Schmidthaler (2014). “Re-focussing research efforts on the public acceptance of energy infrastructure: A critical review”. In: Energy 76.1, pp. 4–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2013.12.056.
  • Dan M. Kahan (2017). ““Ordinary science intelligence”: a sciencecomprehension measure for study of risk and science communication, with notes on evolution and climate change”. In: Journal of Risk Research 20.8, pp. 995–1016. DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2016.1148067.
  • Sydney E. Scott et al. (2018). “An Overview of Attitudes Toward Genetically Engineered Food”. In: Annual Review of Nutrition 38, pp. 459–479. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-nutr-071715-051223.
  • Presentations

  • Caitlin Drummond and Baruch Fischhoff (2017). “Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics”. In: PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114.36, pp. 9587–9592. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1704882114.
  • Dan M. Kahan, Ellen Peters, et al. (2012). “The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks”. In: Nature Climate Change 2, pp. 732–735. DOI: 10.1038/nclimate1547.
  • Benjamin J. A. Walker, Bouke Wiersma, and Etienne Bailey (2014). “Community benefits, framing and the social acceptance of offshore wind farms: An experimental study in England”. In: Energy Research & Social Science 3, pp. 46–54. DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2014.07.003.
  • Climate change

    Mandatory readings

  • Thomas Bernauer and Lena Maria Schaffer (2012). “Climate Change Governance”. In: The Oxford Handbook of Governance. Ed. by David Levi-Faur. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 441–454. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0031.
  • Background readings

  • Matthew Cashmore et al. (2019). “International experiences with opposition to wind energy siting decisions: lessons for environmental and social appraisal”. In: Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 62.7, pp. 1109–1132. DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2018.1473150.
  • Bill Gates (2021). How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need. New York: Knopf.
  • Chris Goodall (2020). What we need to do now: For a zero carbon future. London: Profile Books.
  • Thomas Hale (2020). “Transnational Actors and Transnational Governance in Global Environmental Politics”. In: Annual Review of Political Science 23, pp. 203–220. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032644.
  • Mike Hulme (2009). Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Yifei Li and Judith Shapiro (2020). China Goes Green. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Presentations

  • Jeremy Firestone et al. (2018). “Reconsidering barriers to wind power projects: community engagement, developer transparency and place”. In: Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 20.3, pp. 370–386. DOI: 10.1080/1523908X.2017.1418656.
  • Stephen Hale (2010). “The new politics of climate change: why we are failing and how we will succeed”. In: Environmental Politics 19.2, pp. 255–275. DOI: 10.1080/09644010903576900.
  • Marie Byskov Lindberg, Jochen Markard, and Allan Dahl Andersena (2019). “Policies, actors and sustainability transition pathways: A study of the EU’s energy policy mix”. In: Research Policy 48.10, p. 103668. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.09.003.
  • Artificial intelligence (AI)

    Mandatory readings

  • Miriam C. Buiten (2019). “Towards Intelligent Regulation of Artificial Intelligence”. In: European Journal of Risk Regulation 10.1, pp. 41–59. DOI: 10.1017/err.2019.8.
  • Background readings

  • Brian Christian (2020). The Alignment Problem: Machine Learning and Human Values. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
  • Kai-Fu Lee (2018). AI Superpowers: China, Silicon Valley, and the New World Order. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
  • Melanie Mitchell (2019). Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans. New York: Farrat, Straus and Giroux.
  • Frank Pasquale (2020). New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Presentations

  • Araz Taeihagh and Hazel Si Min Lim (2019). “Governing autonomous vehicles: emerging responses for safety, liability, privacy, cybersecurity, and industry risks”. In: Transport Reviews 39.1, pp. 103–128. DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2018.1494640.
  • Baobao Zhang and Allan Dafoe (2020). “U.S. Public Opinion on the Governance of Artificial Intelligence”. In: AIES ’20: Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. Ed. by Annette Markham et al. New York: ACM, pp. 187–193. DOI: 10.1145/3375627.3375827.
  • , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,