Agility in R&I Policy - how much is too much? - Eu-SPRI 2021
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Agility in R&I Policy - how much is too much? Authors: Doris Schartinger1, Matthias Weber2, Peter Biegelbauer2 & Christoph Brodnik2. AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH 1 AIT Austrian Institute of Technlogy 2 Recent research has come up with a definition of the subject matter, criteria for agility in R&I policy and provided an array of elements already implemented in several R&I policy areas in different countries. While this enables a characterization of agile R&I policy practices already in place and the further development of basic recommendations and conducive measures, it leaves us with the paradox that the implementation of the sum of all agile practices and resulting recommendations would most likely result in increased administration, vast complexity and a large amount of resources needed. This leads us to the overall question guiding this paper: Can we identify patterns, contexts or particular framings that make single practices in agile R&I policy or combinations of practices more effective? A number of selected German and international case studies were used as examples of agile R&I policy in order to examine them for their elements and patterns. In our set of illustrative examples from existing policies we find recurring elements of agile R&I policy. We present a framework that turned out to be useful to categorise current practices of agile R&I policy, and to effectively support the sense-making process.
Post Covid mobility – towards a social tipping point for sustainable mobility Authors: Floor Alkemade1. Eindhoven University of Technology. 1 EXTENDED ABSTRACT Introduction Transport is responsible for 24% of global emissions and meeting climate goals of the Paris agreement requires an acceleration of the pace of the transition to sustainable mobility. Typically, measures requiring behavioral changes and new mobility practices (avoid and shift) have been very difficult to successfully implement on a large scale. These behavioral changes have however been identified as important to realize mobility patterns compatible with the Paris agreement (Akenji et al., 2019). Recent insights from sustainability transitions research (Kern et al., 2019; Rogge & Reichardt, 2016) and on social tipping points (Sharpe & Lenton, 2021) argue that the required acceleration of the mobility transition can only be reached through systemic approaches, and policy mixes that set in motion positive feedback loops, targeting multiple aspects of the transport system. The COVID-19 crisis may offer new evidence on such social tipping points as it has provided unprecedented and much needed insights in the potential impacts from changes in mobility practices. It has dramatically changed mobility patterns worldwide. Most notably the crisis has led to a turnaround in the attitude towards working from home. Such changes in behavioral patterns may provide hopeful openings that initiate positive feedback loops that accelerate the transition to sustainable mobility. However, without supporting policy it is likely that the mobility system will return to its previous state. The policy challenge is to now scale back COVID measures while keeping the sustainability advantages that became apparent in the past months. The main goal of the paper is to identify a set of measures and instruments that support this. To this end we have surveyed mobility experts in the Netherlands. These experts were asked to evaluate 48 possible mobility related policy instruments. These 48 instruments have been mentioned in the policy discussions in recent years. Some have broad support whereas others have not, however this may have changed due to the pandemic. More specifically, following (Hepburn et al., 2020) we asked the experts to evaluate the measure along 4 dimensions: climate impact, economic growth, access/social inequality, and 1.5 meter compatibility. Policy design for sustainable mobility The literature on policy design emphasizes how policy mixes for sustainability should consists of a coherent, congruent and consist set of policy instruments, that reinforce one another and work towards a common goal (Howlett & Rayner, 2013). Empirical studies of the policy mixes that are in place reveal that this is typically not the case as the policy mix is an outcome of path dependent, political processes at different levels of governance. We build on recent observations(Sharpe & Lenton, 2021) of positive feedback loops and social tipping points, to propose a pragmatic approach where opportunities for creating such dynamics are seized and reinforced through policy layering, That is, by supporting positive turns towards sustainable mobility in order to prevent a return to the previous practices. Policy for sustainable mobility is often analyzed using the ASI (Avoid, Shift, Improve) framework (Creutzig et al., 2018). Avoid refers to measures that aim to reduce the number and length of trips, shift concerns measures that stimulate a shift to more environmentally friendly modes of
transportation, and finally, improve refers to the improvement of mobility technologies and infrastructures. Survey of sustainable mobility policies Table 1 below lists the 48 policy measures as well as their classification using the ASI framework. The list includes the options with large reduction potential identified in the 1,5 degree lifestyles report(Akenji et al., 2019) car-free private travel and commuting, electric and hybrid cars, vehicle fuels efficiency improvement, ride sharing, living nearer to workplaces. Overall, the set includes 11 ‘avoid’ measures, 13 measures that aim for a shift to more sustainable modes of transport and 21 measure seeking to improve the efficiency of the transport system, and 3 measure that were difficult to classify. Also, the distinction between avoid and shift is not always clear as measure often will have both effects: some people will not travel at all using ICT as a substitute for mobility while other will shift to more sustainable modes of transport. Moreover, some of the measure are typically initiated at the city level, such as environmental zones, while other are initiated by national governments or employers. This provides an alignment challenge for consistent and coherent policy design. Finally, the measures differ in timing. Some measure can be implemented right now whereas others will take a bit more time. Similarly, the lag time between the implementation of the measure and the expected effects also differs. Table 1 Overview of measures Policy measure (Avoid,Shift, Improve) 1. Reduce car dependence by building compact cities / through compact cities Avoid 2. Reduce car dependence by (re)designing cities as 15-minute cities Avoid 3. Reduce car dependence by increasing perceived safety in public spaces Avoid 4. Car-free inner cities / car-free city centers Shift 5. Dedicate space outside inner cities to walking, cycling and public transport Shift 6. Expand existing low emission zones and create new ones Shift 7. Reduce the number of parking spaces Shift 8. Change the national infrastructure investment fund into a mobility fund. Other 9. Reduce speed limits on freeways and arterial roads Improve 10. Reduce speed limits in cities Improve 11. Government support for air transport sector Other 12. Introduce national flight tax Avoid 13. Execute plans for restructuring air transport sector Improve 14. Greening of air transport through stimulating electric flying and hydrogen fueled planes. Improve 15. Increase use of public transport through increased connectivity Shift 16. Reduce public transport fees Shift 17. Reduce emissions associated with public transport Improve
18. Invest in multi-modal hub infrastructure Shift 19. Stimulate use of multi-modal hubs Shift 20. Substantially increase subsidies for buying electric vehicles Improve 21. Stimulate charging infrastructure development Improve 22. Subsidize hydrogen as a fuel for freight and long-distance transport Improve 23. Stimulate hydrogen fuel infrastructure development Improve 24. Subsidize biomass as a fuel for freight transport Improve 25. Subsidize electric bicycles Shift 26. Introduce eco-label for tires Improve 27. Stimulate modal shift from trucks to train and ship for freight transport Shift 28. Realize zero-emission city supply logistics Improve 29. Shorter designated loading and unloading times for freight in cities Avoid 30. Invest in intermodal transport hubs for freight at the edge of cities Shift 31. Stimulate use of intermodal transport hub at edges of city. Shift 32. Reduce long, global supply chains Avoid 33. Create strategic reserves to ensure security of supply Other 34. Better match demand and supply - Increase usage of truck space through ICT Avoid 35. Stimulate smart mobility technologies / technology for smart mobility Improve 36. Improve traffic information through increased digitization of traffic management Improve 37. Invest in intelligent traffic management systems (that adapt to actual traffic flows) Improve 38. Invest in smart shipping Improve 39. Subsidize research and development for automated driving Improve 40. Prepare infrastructure for (semi-)automated driving Improve 41. Spread work hours by employers Improve 42. Spread of school / university hours Improve 43. Stimulate working from home (new norm 1-3 days a week) Avoid 44. Reduce traffic expense reimbursements for unsustainable transport modes Shift 45. Stimulate car sharing and ride sharing Avoid 46. Include externalities in prices of mobility Avoid 47. Use congestion tax as alternative pricing scheme for road traffic Improve 48. Introduce CO2 tax on fuels Avoid
Results and conclusions. The survey was sent out to 280 experts, of which 66 completed the survey, a response rate of 23%. Figure 1 below presents the outcomes of the survey. First, we note that most measures are evaluated by the experts as reducing the climate impacts of mobility (except measures 11, 29, 33, 39, and 40). Of the 43 measures that are considered beneficial for the climate, our expert group identified potential trade-offs with economic growth for nine measures. In the full paper we further analyze and discuss how these measures can be combined into policy mixes for sustainable mobility. Figure 1: Outcomes of the survey Akenji, L., Lettenmeier, M., Koide, R., Toivio, V., & Amellina, A. (2019). 1.5-Degree Lifestyles: Targets and options for reducing lifestyle carbon footprints. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Aalto University, and D-mat ltd. https://www.iges.or.jp/en/pub/15-degrees-lifestyles-2019/en Creutzig, F., Roy, J., Lamb, W. F., Azevedo, I. M. L., Bruine de Bruin, W., Dalkmann, H., Edelenbosch, O. Y., Geels, F. W., Grubler, A., Hepburn, C., Hertwich, E. G., Khosla, R., Mattauch, L., Minx, J. C., Ramakrishnan, A., Rao, N. D., Steinberger, J. K., Tavoni, M., Ürge-Vorsatz, D., & Weber, E. U. (2018). Towards demand-side solutions for mitigating climate change. Nature Climate Change, 8(4), 260– 263. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0121-1 Hepburn, C., O’Callaghan, B., Stern, N., Stiglitz, J., & Zenghelis, D. (2020). Will COVID-19 fiscal recovery packages accelerate or retard progress on climate change? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 36(Supplement_1), S359–S381. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/graa015 Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2013). Patching vs Packaging in Policy Formulation: Assessing Policy Portfolio Design. Politics and Governance, 1(2), 170–182. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v1i2.95 Kern, F., Rogge, K. S., & Howlett, M. (2019). Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: New approaches and insights through bridging innovation and policy studies. Research Policy, 48(10), 103832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103832 Moreno, C., Allam, Z., Chabaud, D., Gall, C., & Pratlong, F. (2021). Introducing the “15-Minute City”: Sustainability, Resilience and Place Identity in Future Post-Pandemic Cities. Smart Cities, 4(1), 93– 111. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities4010006 Rogge, K. S., & Reichardt, K. (2016). Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis. Research Policy, 45(8), 1620–1635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.04.004 Sharpe, S., & Lenton, T. M. (2021). Upward-scaling tipping cascades to meet climate goals: Plausible grounds for hope. Climate Policy, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1870097
Sociotechnical expectations in the government’s early response to the COVID-19
crisis: Assessing the hype-disappointment cycle of contact tracing apps in Colombia
Juan Pablo Centeno
Mónica Paola Vásquez
1. Research problem
Technology is frequently optimistically regarded as a solution for societal challenges in multiple
realms (van Lente, 1993; Konrad, van Lente, Groves, & Selin, 2017). It appears in the form of tools
that enable governments to provide agile responses to complex multilevel challenges (Mergel,
Gong, & Bertot, 2018), and it broadens the spectrum for multiple governance approaches in context
of uncertainty (Kuhlmann, Stegmaier, & Konrad, 2019). In this context, agility often translates into
raising expectations on the promising character of technology, which serves as governances tools
by providing future-oriented instruments and heuristics for governments to perform during complex
uncertainty contexts (Konrad & Böhle, 2019; Hielscher & Kivimaa, 2019; Budde & Konrad, 2019).
The context of uncertainty during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic depicted
governments deploying multiple tools based on information and communications technologies (ICT)
in order to tackle the crisis. Multiple digital and technological tools quickly appeared as potential
instruments to tackle epidemiological challenges that exceed the ability of manual-human labor to
trace cases of disease transmission (Whitelaw, Mamas, Topol, & Van Spall, 2020; Gasser, Ienca,
Scheibner, Sleigh, & Vayena, 2020; Horgan, y otros, 2020). Contact tracing apps quickly received
public attention both by the public and governments, considering the successful experience of some
countries in this regard, as well as their controversies, for instance, in the case of South Korean (Lee
& Lee, 2020; Ryan, 2020).
In this paper, we discuss the role of expectations in the case of contact tracing mobile apps in
Colombia during the early month of the Corona crisis. As in many countries, in 2020 the Colombian
government implemented a contact tracing app called ‘Coronapp’ with the purpose of tracking
possible new cases of infection in the country. By early March the Minister of Health announced the
implementation of the app, and by April the Minister of ICT depicted Coronapp as an app that saves
lives (MinTIC, 2020), attributing such an agency to this tool under which technology is regarded as
a mechanism to preserve biological life. However, such optimistic expectations quickly declined with
the appearance of criticism regarding the efficacy, inclusiveness and, specially, privacy risks of the
app. Such criticism deepened when the app was found to be ineffective in tracking down potential
cases of contagion, as opposed to apps in other countries that used Bluetooth technology for this
function (Botero, Sáenz, Labarthe, & Velásquez, 2020).
Some other international experiences have also raised such efficacy criticisms on technological
interventions (Berardi, et al., 2020). Literature also underscores the ethical and privacy concerns on
contact tracing apps around the globe (Rowe, 2020; Dubov & Shoptawb, 2020; Galloway, 2020;
Guinchard, 2020; Hoffman, et al., 2020; Hsu, 2020; Klar & Lanzerath, 2020; Klenk & Duijf, 2020;
Lapolla & Lee, 2020), which have an impact on their acceptability by the public (Abuhammad,
Khabour, & Alzoubi, 2020; Guillon & Kergall, 2020; Jonker, et al., 2020; Joo & Shin, 2020; Kaspar,
2020; Altmann, y otros, 2020; Trang, Trenz, Weiger, Tarafdar, & Cheung, 2020), specially in countries
1of the Global South which still deal with major digital gaps (Arakpogun, Elsahn, Prime, Gerli, & Olan,
2020).
The case of Coronapp in Colombia suggests a permanent tension between the multiple expectations
that might exist regarding a specific technological tool in order to address the challenges of the
pandemic. On the one hand, some regard Coronapp as a promising solution that poses positive
expectations regarding the governments response to the pandemic. On the other hand, it is
perceived by other actors as a threat to privacy and individual freedom, as well as a efficacy and
inclusiveness-lacking tool. This case, therefore, illustrates the hype-disappointment dynamics that
shape the implementation of technological solutions in addressing complex challenges (Borup,
Brown, Konrad, & van Lente, 2006; Ruef & Markard, 2010).
This paper analyzes the hype-disappointment cycle regarding the expectations on Coronapp as
depicted in the public debate in Colombia. We aim at characterizing the process of disappointment
that followed the high expectations of the app, deriving insights on what are the main factors,
dynamics and processes that explain the decline of specific technological solution that does not
meet the expectations raised.
With this, we intend to contribute to the broader discussion on the role of expectations and
promises in the case of technologies that connect multiple realms: the social, the political, the
biological and the informatic. Even tough contact tracing apps have been designed as technical
devices to address public health challenges, they are perceived to have an impact on the social and
private spheres. Furthermore, they are transformed into a potential solution in the realm of policy
and, therefore, they are subject to permanent political and social scrutiny. Furthermore, the paper
adds to the literature discussing the performative role of sociotechnical expectations in society, and
how their dynamics inform the governance of the pandemic in countries of the Global South like
Colombia.
2. Conceptual approach
As suggested above, this paper builds on sociology of expectations (van Lente, 1993; Borup, Brown,
Konrad, & van Lente, 2006; Konrad, van Lente, Groves, & Selin, 2017) in order to assess the
governance dynamics of the pandemic in Colombia and the interplay of future-oriented discursive
tools in this regard. Borup, et al. (2006) define expectations as “real-time representations of future
technological situations and capabilities” (p. 286). Emphasizing their collective and plausible
character1, Konrad, et al. (2017) suggest a broader conceptualization of expectations as “statements
about future conditions or developments that imply assumptions about how likely these are
supposed to be and that travel in a community or public space” (pág. 466).
They vary in terms of content, including a broad range of aspects beyond the technical sphere such
as economic, political and cultural concerns (van Lente, 2012). Their scope also ranges from specific
references to certain future-oriented manifestations of technology, to generalized envisions of
broader technological fields, to overarching societal frames to approach technology (Ruef &
1
This distinguishes expectations from other future oriented notions such as imaginaries or visions, which
stress a more normative character (Borup, et al., 2006).
2Markard, 2010; van Lente, Spitters, & Peine, Comparing technological hype cycles: Towards a
theory, 2013).
Expectations have a performative character, i.e. they are more than just normative descriptions of
possible future realities, but contribute to creating and shaping them. This generative or constitutive
character in the dynamics of expectations depicts their capacity in building obligations out of
promises, in what van Lente calls the ‘promise-requirement cycle’: actors are expected to meet the
features of reality posed by such technological statements and, in this regard expectations can be
understood as ‘self-fulfilling’ promises (van Lente, 2012).
This performative character is represented in three main functions of expectations: i) providing
guiding heuristics for sociotechnical processes; ii) mobilizing resources towards legitimized techno-
scientific developments; and iii) coordinating actors’ interactions in networks (van Lente, 2012, p.
772). In doing so, expectations operate and materialize at different governance levels, ranging from
broad macro policy abstractions to micro detailed envisions within networks (van Lente, 2012).
3. Methodological approach
This paper assesses hype-disappointment cycle of contact tracing apps in Colombia by analyzing the
expectations raised in this regard within the public debate in the country. In order to do that, and
based on the work of Ruef & Markard (2010) and van Lente et al. (2013), we conduct a systematic
media review in order to trace the attention that ‘Coronapp’ received during 2020, which illustrates
the increase and decline of expectations regarding them. Following the authors, media attention
and expectation statements in media documents account for potential hypes in the evolution of a
specific technological development. We identify the frequency of discussions regarding ‘Coronapp’
that appear in the Colombian media with a national scope: Revista Semana, El Espectador, El Tiempo
and Portafolio. These are selected considering their broad circulation and audience. Media
documents are systematized in a table that distinguishes the characteristics of their content
regarding expectation statements on ‘Coronapp’: do they suggest generic or specific expectations?
Are those positive, negative or neutral expectations? Do these expectations have a time scope for
their materialization?
This implies a quantitative analysis on the frequency of media attention, and a qualitative analysis
on the content of media statements. The latter is complemented with a documental survey and by
conducting semi-structured interviews with relevant stakeholders regarding ‘Coronapp’ such as civil
society organizations, academics, users of the app, and public officials from the National Health
Institute, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of ICT, among others.
4. Expected results and contributions
This paper contributes to the discussion of track 13 ‘Agility, tentativeness and resilience: how to
govern innovation systems and STI policies in times of crises and transformative change?’. It does
so by discussing how sociotechnical expectations are a governance device whose performative role
allows governments to provide agile responses to complex crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
Such expectations revolve around technical devices based on ICT, such as contact tracing apps,
which are expected to contribute to tacking the pandemic. Raising expectations can be then
3regarded as an anticipatory practice that enables tentative and agile governance response in
contexts of uncertainty.
Furthermore, this ongoing research will provide additional empirical insights to better understand
the characteristics of hypes regarding a convergent technological tool that operates in the boundary
of political, ICT and social realms. We expect to build the evolution of expectations in time, and to
identify different moments in this evolution process that might have differential characteristics.
Furthermore, we add to the literature on sociology of expectations interested in hype-
disappointment cycles (Ruef & Markard, 2010; van Lente, Spitters, & Peine, 2013), providing insights
into how expectations have an impact in governance processes in countries of the Global South such
as Colombia.
This research offers a critical approach on technological solutions that are often pushed by
governments as ‘silver bullets’ to address complex challenges such as the COVID-19 crisis, and
highlights how multiple actors approach to and discursively frame contact tracing apps. However,
rather than just criticize, we are interested in understanding their performative character. We
identify how the performative functions of expectations are operationalized in this case, and discuss
how this performative role has shaped the governance of the pandemic in Colombia.
This adds to the discussions on the tensions of contact tracing apps around the globe, and underlines
some explanatory elements of why these technical devices have been successful or not in different
countries. We believe that this reflection is relevant for a better understanding of how governments
deploy agile solutions to complex sociotechnical challenges.
5. Bibliography
Abuhammad, S., Khabour, O., & Alzoubi, K. (2020). Covid-19 contact-tracing technology:
Acceptability and ethical issues of use. Patient Preference and Adherence, 14, 1639-1647.
Altmann, S., Milsom, L., Zillessen, H., Blasone, R., Gerdon, F., Bach, R., . . . Abeler, J. (2020).
Acceptability of app-based contact tracing for COVID-19: Cross-country survey study. JMIR
mHealth and uHealth, 8(8), 1-9.
Arakpogun, E., Elsahn, Z., Prime, K., Gerli, P., & Olan, F. (2020). Digital contact-tracing and
pandemics: Institutional and technological preparedness in Africa. World Development, 136,
105105. Obtenido de https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105105
Berardi, C., Antonini, M., Genie, M., Cotugno, G., Lanteri, A., Melia, A., & Paolucci, F. (2020). The
COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: Policy and technology impact on health and non-health
outcomes. Health Policy and Technology, 9(4), 454-487. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2020.08.019
Borup, M., Brown, N., Konrad, K., & van Lente, H. (2006). The Sociology of Expectations in Science
and Technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(3), 285–298.
doi:10.1080=09537320600777002
Botero, C., Sáenz, P., Labarthe, S., & Velásquez, A. (2020, April 23). ¿Qué dice que hace y qué es lo
que realmente hace CoronApp? Fundación Karisma. Retrieved from
4https://web.karisma.org.co/que-dice-que-hace-y-que-es-lo-que-realmente-hace-
coronapp/
Budde, B., & Konrad, K. (2019). Tentative governing of fuel cell innovation in a dynamic network of
expectations. Research Policy, 48(5), 1098-1112.
Dubov, A., & Shoptawb, S. (2020). The Value and Ethics of Using Technology to Contain the COVID-
19 Epidemic. American Journal of Bioethics, 20(7), W7-W11.
Galloway, K. (2020). The COVID cyborg: Protecting data status. Alternative Law Journal, 45(3), 162-
167.
Gasser, U., Ienca, M., Scheibner, J., Sleigh, J., & Vayena, E. (2020). Digital tools against COVID-19:
taxonomy, ethical challenges, and navigation aid. The Lancet Digital Health, 2(8), e425-
e434. Obtenido de http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30137-0
Guillon, M., & Kergall, P. (11 de 2020). Attitudes and opinions on quarantine and support for a
contact-tracing application in France during the COVID-19 outbreak. Public Health, 188, 21-
31.
Guinchard, A. (2020). Our digital footprint under Covid-19: should we fear the UK digital contact
tracing app? International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, 0(0), 1-14. Obtenido
de https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2020.1794569
Hielscher, S., & Kivimaa, P. (2019). Governance through expectations: Examining the long-term
policy relevance of smart meters in the United Kingdom. Futures, 109(June 2018), 153-169.
Hoffman, A., Jacobs, B., van Gastel, B., Schraffenberger, H., Sharon, T., & Pas, B. (2020). Towards a
seamful ethics of Covid-19 contact tracing apps? Ethics and Information
Technology(0123456789). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-020-09559-7
Horgan, D., Hackett, J., Westphalen, C., Kalra, D., Richer, E., Romao, M., . . . Montserrat, A. (2020).
Digitalisation and COVID-19: The Perfect Storm. Biomedicine Hub, 5(3), 1-23.
Hsu, J. (2020). The Dilemma of Contact- Tracing Apps. IEEE Spectrum(October), 56-59.
Jonker, M., de Bekker-Grob, E., Veldwijk, J., Goossens, L., Bour, S., & Mölken, M. (2020). COVID-19
contact tracing apps: Predicted uptake in the Netherlands based on a discrete choice
experiment. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 8(10), 1-14.
Joo, J., & Shin, M. (2020). Resolving the tension between full utilization of contact tracing app
services and user stress as an effort to control the COVID-19 pandemic. Service Business,
14(4), 461-478. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-020-00424-7
Kaspar, K. (2020). Motivations for social distancing and app use as complementary measures to
combat the COVID-19 pandemic: Quantitative survey study. Journal of Medical Internet
Research, 22(8).
Klar, R., & Lanzerath, D. (2020). The ethics of COVID-19 tracking apps – challenges and voluntariness.
Research Ethics, 16(3-4), 1-9.
5Klenk, M., & Duijf, H. (2020). Ethics of digital contact tracing and COVID-19: who is (not) free to go?
Ethics and Information Technology(0123456789). Obtenido de
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-020-09544-0
Konrad, K., & Böhle, K. (2019). Socio-technical futures and the governance of innovation processes—
An introduction to the special issue. Futures, 109(March), 101-107.
Konrad, K., van Lente, H., Groves, C., & Selin, C. (2017). Performing and Governing the Future in
Science and Technology. En K. Konrad, H. van Lente, C. Groves, C. Selin, & Clark Miller; Ulrike
Felt; Rayvon Fouché; Laurel Smith-Doerr (Ed.), The Handbook of Science and Technology
Studies (págs. 465-493). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kuhlmann, S., Stegmaier, P., & Konrad, K. (2019). The tentative governance of emerging science and
technology—A conceptual introduction. Research Policy, 48(5), 1091-1097.
Lapolla, P., & Lee, R. (2020). Privacy versus safety in contact-tracing apps for coronavirus disease
2019. Digital Health, 6, 1-2.
Lee, S., & Lee, D. (2020). Lessons learned from battling COVID-19: The Korean experience.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(20), 1-20.
Mergel, I., Gong, Y., & Bertot, J. (2018). Agile government: Systematic literature review and future
research. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 291-298.
MinTIC. (14 de April de 2020). CoronApp, la aplicación que salva vidas. Ministerio de Tecnologías de
la Información y las Comunicaciones. Obtenido de https://mintic.gov.co/portal/inicio/Sala-
de-Prensa/Noticias/126573:CoronApp-la-aplicacion-que-salva-vidas
Rowe, F. (2020). Contact tracing apps and values dilemmas: A privacy paradox in a neo-liberal world.
International Journal of Information Management, 55(June), 102178. Obtenido de
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102178
Ruef, A., & Markard, J. (4 de 2010). What happens after a hype? How changing expectations affected
innovation activities in the case of stationary fuel cells. Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management, 22(3), 317-338.
Ryan, M. (2020). In defence of digital contact-tracing: human rights, South Korea and Covid-19.
International Journal of Pervasive Computing and Communications, 16(4), 383-407.
Trang, S., Trenz, M., Weiger, W., Tarafdar, M., & Cheung, C. (2020). One app to trace them all?
Examining app specifications for mass acceptance of contact-tracing apps. European Journal
of Information Systems, 29(4), 415-428. Obtenido de
https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1784046
van Lente, H. (1993). Promising Technology: The Dynamics of Expectations in Technological
Developments. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Twente.
van Lente, H. (2012). Navigating foresight in a sea of expectations: lessons from the sociology of
expectations. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(8), 769-782.
doi:10.1080/09537325.2012.715478
6van Lente, H., Spitters, C., & Peine, A. (2013). Comparing technological hype cycles: Towards a
theory. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 80, 1615–1628.
Whitelaw, S., Mamas, M., Topol, E., & Van Spall, H. (2020). Applications of digital technology in
COVID-19 pandemic planning and response. The Lancet Digital Health, 2(8), e435-e440.
Obtenido de http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30142-4
7You can also read
