Las lecturas básicas del programa, con temas que cubren la teoría y organización del poder, disponibles en el siguiente enlace
Otras lecturas sugeridas
Democratic Theory and Political Science: A Pragmatic Method of Constructive Engagement. ARCHON FUNG Harvard University, American Political Science Review Vol. 101, No. 3 August 2007. 16 pags. DOI: 10.1017/S000305540707030X.
A Problem-Based Approach to Democratic Theory. MARK E. WARREN University of British Columbia. American Political Science Review (2017) 111, 1, 39–53. 16 pags.
A Typology of Democratic Innovations. Stephen Elstub, (Newcastle University & Oliver
Escobar. Paper for the Political Studies Association’s Annual Conference, 10th-12th April
2017, Glasgow. 31 pags.
Free Speech in the Algorithmic Society: Big Data, Private Governance, and New School Speech Regulation. Jack M. Balkin. Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship Series, 2018. 63 pags.
How artificial intelligence is transforming the world. Darrell M. West and John R. Allen Tuesday, April 24, 2018. Report, Brookings Institution.
Code-dependent; Pros and cons of the algorithm age. 2017. Pew Internet. 87 pags.
CoDesigning Participatory Tools for a New Age: A Proposal for Combining Collective and Artificial Intelligences. Fernández-Martínez et al. (Institute of Advanced Social Studies IESA-CSIC & University of Granada, Spain). 21 pags.
Engineering Democratization in Internet of Things Data Analytics. Evangelos Pournaras, Jovan Nikolic, Ale ́ s Omerzel, Dirk Helbing ˇETH Zurich. Zurich, Switzerlan. 10 pags.
A Study of EU Data Protection Regulation and Appropriate Security for Digital Services and Platforms. 183 pags. Magnus Westerlund. 2014.
Nuestros datos, algo más protegidos. Javier Gilsanz. jueves, 24 de mayo de 2018.
Privacy in the Smart City, 2017.
La privacy by design: un´analisi comparata nelléra digitale. Giorgia Bincoletto. 2017. 167 Pags.
Seven Types of Privacy, 33 pags. S. Gutwirth et al. (eds.), European Data Protection: Coming of Age, 3. DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-5170-5_1, © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013.
Reviving the Public Trustee Concept and Applying It to Information Privacy Policy
Priscilla M. Regan. 2017. Mariland Law Review. 76. 20 pags.
Information Privacy Research. An Interdisciplinary Review. H. Jeff Smith et al. MIS Quarterly Vol. 35 No. 4 pp. 989-1 01 5/December 2011. 28 pags.
La versión larga de este artículo incluye:
Appendix A: Methodology Used to Identify Research Publications
Table B1. Descriptive Studies on General Privacy by Level of Analysis
Table B2. Normative Studies on General Privacy by Level of Analysis
Table B3. Empirically Descriptive Statistics p. 33
Table B4. Approaches to Defining General Privacy p. 35
Table B5. Studies Related to Cross- Cultural Contexts p. 36
Table B7. Studies by sector. p. 39-42
Table B8. Studies by Political Context. p. 43
Policy and Ethics. Will Democracy Survive Big Data and Artificial Intelligence?
Dirk Helbing, Bruno S. Frey, Gerd Gigerenzer, Ernst Hafen, Michael Hagner, Yvonne Hofstetter, Jeroen van den Hoven, Roberto V. Zicari, Andrej Zwitter. February 25, 2017. Scientific American. 48 pags.
Cultural and generational influences on privacy concerns: a qualitative study in seven European countries. European Journal of Information Systems (2014) 23, 103–125. Enlace:
Privacy as a public good. Fairfield, J. and Engel, C. Duke Law Journal, (2015) 65. n. 3. 73 pags.
Semantic Web Regulatory Models: Why Ethics Matter. Philosophy and Technology (Springer Journal). Pompeu Casanovas. Special issue on Information Societies, Ethical Enquiries. 2014. 27 pags. DOI: 10.1007/s13347-014-0170-y
Taming the Golem: Challenges of Ethical Algorithmic decision-making. Omer Tene & Jules Polonetsky. 2017. North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology .Vol. 19, Issue 1 .19 pags.
Scientists on big data and ethics: 'Design systems that meet our values'. 30 Apr 2018.
Managing Democracy in the Digital Age. Internet Regulation, Social Media Use,
and Online Civic Engagement. 2018. Libro 268 pags.
Larry Gross (Ed.) Authoritarian Practices in the Digital Age. Special Issue 2018. International Journal of Communication (IJoC) http://ijoc.org/ — Including: Marcus Michaelsen, Marlies Glasius “Illiberal and Authoritarian Practices in the Digital Sphere”, Marcus Michaelsen “Information, Security, and Authoritarian Stability: Internet Policy Diffusion and Coordination in the Former Soviet Region”; Jaclyn A. Kerr “The Contestation and Shaping of Cyber Norms through China's Internet”; Sarah McKune, Shazeda Ahmed: “Transforming Threats to Power: The International Politics of Authoritarian Internet Control in Iran”; Marcus Michaelsen “Asymmetrical Power Between Internet Giants and Users in China”; Aofei Lv, Ting Luo “Blocking the Bottleneck: Internet Shutdowns and Ownership at Election Times in Sub-Saharan Africa”; Tina Freyburg, Lisa Garbe “Understanding Internet Shutdowns: A Case Study from Pakistan”; Ben Wagner, “Through a Glass, Darkly: Everyday Acts of Authoritarianism in the Liberal West”; Stefania Milan, Arne Hintz
Also, watch out:
Call for Papers for a Special Issue of Global Media and China (A Sage journal)
- Deadline Extended to 15th October 2018. Theme: “Data on demand: Ranking the nation, predicting the future” Guest Editors*, Michael Keane (Curtin University, Australia), Gary Rawnsley (University of Nottingham Ningbo China ). Target issue: June 2019. Overview: Many organisations, including governments, are now investing considerable resources into trying to measure both quantitatively and qualitatively the success and impact of their activities.
"This has given rise to a whole new industry that conducts longitudinal studies and feeds a new interest in global rankings. Governments are using their country’s position in these rankings as an indication of attraction, and a rise in global rankings is good news unless this represents a negative
indicator, such as pollution or press freedom. Today one of the most pervasive indicators of national reputation is soft power, with organisations such as Portland developing rankings for institutions such as the Annenberg School of Communication, the British Council and the government of Wales; while /Monocle/ magazine publishes its own soft power rankings at the end of each year. Other rankings measure a range of issues, including social progress, innovation, happiness, food security, Internet access and connection speeds, and pop culture exports. In addition, regions and cities are also analysed in an effort to understand the growing influence of sub-national actors. Rankings compare cities according to their liveability, global connectivity, friendliness, cultural diversity and creativity. A further development is the use of metrics to rank people within prescribed social demographics. The methodology behind such metrics has attracted less attention than the rankings themselves, though understanding this is crucial for our interpretation of the data. For instance some have argued that China’s soft power and social progress rankings would be far higher if they were measured according to values endorsed by the Chinese government rather than by the more liberal norms of OECD institutions. Moreover, measurement itself reveals little about the emotional response of audiences to cultural products or their engagement with political institutions. Clearly, we need to pay more attention to qualitative rather than quantitative research if we wish to know how and why audiences engage with a particular country or government."
and Online Civic Engagement. 2018. Libro 268 pags.
Larry Gross (Ed.) Authoritarian Practices in the Digital Age. Special Issue 2018. International Journal of Communication (IJoC) http://ijoc.org/ — Including: Marcus Michaelsen, Marlies Glasius “Illiberal and Authoritarian Practices in the Digital Sphere”, Marcus Michaelsen “Information, Security, and Authoritarian Stability: Internet Policy Diffusion and Coordination in the Former Soviet Region”; Jaclyn A. Kerr “The Contestation and Shaping of Cyber Norms through China's Internet”; Sarah McKune, Shazeda Ahmed: “Transforming Threats to Power: The International Politics of Authoritarian Internet Control in Iran”; Marcus Michaelsen “Asymmetrical Power Between Internet Giants and Users in China”; Aofei Lv, Ting Luo “Blocking the Bottleneck: Internet Shutdowns and Ownership at Election Times in Sub-Saharan Africa”; Tina Freyburg, Lisa Garbe “Understanding Internet Shutdowns: A Case Study from Pakistan”; Ben Wagner, “Through a Glass, Darkly: Everyday Acts of Authoritarianism in the Liberal West”; Stefania Milan, Arne Hintz
Also, watch out:
Call for Papers for a Special Issue of Global Media and China (A Sage journal)
- Deadline Extended to 15th October 2018. Theme: “Data on demand: Ranking the nation, predicting the future” Guest Editors*, Michael Keane (Curtin University, Australia), Gary Rawnsley (University of Nottingham Ningbo China ). Target issue: June 2019. Overview: Many organisations, including governments, are now investing considerable resources into trying to measure both quantitatively and qualitatively the success and impact of their activities.
"This has given rise to a whole new industry that conducts longitudinal studies and feeds a new interest in global rankings. Governments are using their country’s position in these rankings as an indication of attraction, and a rise in global rankings is good news unless this represents a negative
indicator, such as pollution or press freedom. Today one of the most pervasive indicators of national reputation is soft power, with organisations such as Portland developing rankings for institutions such as the Annenberg School of Communication, the British Council and the government of Wales; while /Monocle/ magazine publishes its own soft power rankings at the end of each year. Other rankings measure a range of issues, including social progress, innovation, happiness, food security, Internet access and connection speeds, and pop culture exports. In addition, regions and cities are also analysed in an effort to understand the growing influence of sub-national actors. Rankings compare cities according to their liveability, global connectivity, friendliness, cultural diversity and creativity. A further development is the use of metrics to rank people within prescribed social demographics. The methodology behind such metrics has attracted less attention than the rankings themselves, though understanding this is crucial for our interpretation of the data. For instance some have argued that China’s soft power and social progress rankings would be far higher if they were measured according to values endorsed by the Chinese government rather than by the more liberal norms of OECD institutions. Moreover, measurement itself reveals little about the emotional response of audiences to cultural products or their engagement with political institutions. Clearly, we need to pay more attention to qualitative rather than quantitative research if we wish to know how and why audiences engage with a particular country or government."
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario