Regulation of emerging technologies

This page provides a selected bibliography of articles that I consider relevant to the study of regulation of emerging technologies. They include works on governance, issue framing, risk, policy-making, and participation. They cover various technology areas including nanotechnologies, biotechnologies, AI, autonomous vehicles, the Internet of Things, and social media.

Last update: 27 December 2020

  • Ahlqvist, T., Valovirta, V., & Loikkanen, T. (2012). Innovation policy roadmapping as a systemic instrument for forward-looking policy design. Science and Public Policy39(2), 178-190.
  • Armstrong, J. H., & Kamieniecki, S. (2019). Sustainability Policy Research: A Review and Synthesis. Policy Studies Journal47, S45-S65.
  • Auer, M. R. (2011). The policy sciences of social media. Policy Studies Journal39(4), 709-736.
  • Bowman, D. M., & Hodge, G. A. (2008). ‘Governing’nanotechnology without government?. Science and Public Policy35(7), 475-487.
  • Brass, I., & Sowell, J. H. (2020). Adaptive governance for the Internet of Things: Coping with emerging security risks. Regulation & Governance
  • Bromley‐Trujillo, R., & Karch, A. (2019). Salience, scientific uncertainty, and the agenda‐setting power of science. Policy Studies Journal.
  • Clark-Ginsberg, A., & Slayton, R. (2019). Regulating risks within complex sociotechnical systems: Evidence from critical infrastructure cybersecurity standards. Science and Public Policy46(3), 339-346.
  • Corley, E. A., Kim, Y., & Scheufele, D. A. (2013). The current status and future direction of nanotechnology regulations: A view from nano‐scientists. Review of Policy Research30(5), 488-511.
  • Fahey, B. K., & Pralle, S. B. (2016). Governing complexity: recent developments in environmental politics and policy. Policy Studies Journal44(S1), S28-S49.
  • Galey, S. (2015). Education politics and policy: Emerging institutions, interests, and ideas. Policy Studies Journal43(S1), S12-S39.
  • Gottlieb, M., Bertone Oehninger, E., & Arnold, G. (2018). “No fracking way” vs.“drill baby drill”: A restructuring of who is pitted against whom in the narrative policy framework. Policy Studies Journal46(4), 798-827.
  • Gottweis, H. (2002). Stem cell policies in the United States and in Germany: between bioethics and regulation. Policy Studies Journal30(4), 444-469.
  • Greer, S. L., & Trump, B. (2019). Regulation and regime: the comparative politics of adaptive regulation in synthetic biology. Policy Sciences52(4), 505-524.
  • Hodge, G. A., Maynard, A. D., & Bowman, D. M. (2014). Nanotechnology: Rhetoric, risk and regulation. Science and Public Policy41(1), 1-14.
  • Houston, D. J., & Richardson Jr, L. E. (2000). The politics of air bag safety: A competition among problem definitions. Policy Studies Journal28(3), 485-501.
  • Howlett, M. (2014). From the ‘old’to the ‘new’policy design: design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance. Policy sciences47(3), 187-207.
  • Ingold, K., Fischer, M., & Cairney, P. (2017). Drivers for policy agreement in nascent subsystems: an application of the advocacy coalition framework to fracking policy in Switzerland and the UK. Policy studies journal45(3), 442-463.
  • Justo-Hanani, R., & Dayan, T. (2015). European risk governance of nanotechnology: Explaining the emerging regulatory policy. Research Policy44(8), 1527-1536.
  • Kapoor, R., & Klueter, T. (2020). Progress and setbacks: The two faces of technology emergence. Research Policy49(1), 103874.
  • Kester III, J., Moyer, R., & Song, G. (2015). Down the line: Assessing the trajectory of energy policy research development. Policy Studies Journal43(S1), S40-S55.
  • Kuhlmann, S., Stegmaier, P., & Konrad, K. (2019). The tentative governance of emerging science and technology—A conceptual introduction. Research Policy48(5), 1091-1097.
  • Kuzma, J., & Tanji, T. (2010). Unpackaging synthetic biology: Identification of oversight policy problems and options. Regulation & Governance4(1), 92-112.
  • Lawlor, A., & Crow, D. (2018). Risk‐Based Policy Narratives. Policy Studies Journal46(4), 843-867.
  • Lewallen, J. (2020). Emerging technologies and problem definition uncertainty: The case of cybersecurity. Regulation & Governance.
  • Michelson, E. S. (2013). “The Train Has Left the Station”: The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies and the Shaping of Nanotechnology Policy in the U nited S tates. Review of Policy Research30(5), 464-487.
  • Miller, G., & Wickson, F. (2015). Risk analysis of nanomaterials: Exposing Nanotechnology’s naked emperor. Review of Policy Research32(4), 485-512.
  • Nowlin, M. C. (2016). Modeling issue definitions using quantitative text analysis. Policy Studies Journal44(3), 309-331.
  • Otway, H. J., & Von Winterfeldt, D. (1982). Beyond acceptable risk: On the social acceptability of technologies. Policy sciences14(3), 247-256.
  • Pojani, D., & Stead, D. (2018). Policy design for sustainable urban transport in the global south. Policy Design and Practice1(2), 90-102.
  • Roca, J. B., Vaishnav, P., Morgan, M. G., Mendonça, J., & Fuchs, E. (2017). When risks cannot be seen: Regulating uncertainty in emerging technologies. Research Policy46(7), 1215-1233.
  • Rotolo, D., Hicks, D., & Martin, B. R. (2015). What is an emerging technology?. Research policy44(10), 1827-1843.
  • Russell, A. W. (2013). Improving legitimacy in nanotechnology policy development through stakeholder and community engagement: forging new pathways. Review of policy research30(5), 566-587.
  • Samford, S. (2015). Innovation and public space: the developmental possibilities of regulation in the global south. Regulation & Governance9(3), 294-308.
  • Schuelke‐Leech, B. A., Jordan, S. R., & Barry, B. (2019). Regulating Autonomy: An Assessment of Policy Language for Highly Automated Vehicles. Review of Policy Research36(4), 547-579.
  • Stevenson, H., & Dryzek, J. S. (2012). The legitimacy of multilateral climate governance: a deliberative democratic approach. Critical Policy Studies6(1), 1-18.
  • Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research policy42(9), 1568-1580.
  • Syväterä, J., & Alasuutari, P. (2013). Conforming to global policy trends: legitimating narratives in the case of ethical policy advice. Critical Policy Studies7(1), 37-52.
  • Tan, S. Y., & Taeihagh, A. (2020). Governing the adoption of robotics and autonomous systems in long-term care in Singapore. Policy and Society, 1-21.
  • Trousset, S. (2014). Current trends in science and technology policy research: An examination of published works from 2010–2012. Policy Studies Journal42, S87-S117.
  • Trump, B., Cummings, C., Kuzma, J., & Linkov, I. (2018). A decision analytic model to guide early‐stage government regulatory action: Applications for synthetic biology. Regulation & Governance12(1), 88-100.
  • Tylecote, A. (2019). Biotechnology as a new techno-economic paradigm that will help drive the world economy and mitigate climate change. Research Policy48(4), 858-868.
  • Tzur, A. (2019). Uber Über regulation? Regulatory change following the emergence of new technologies in the taxi market. Regulation & Governance13(3), 340-361.
  • Ulnicane, I., Knight, W., Leach, T., Stahl, B. C., & Wanjiku, W. G. (2020). Framing governance for a contested emerging technology: insights from AI policy. Policy and Society, 1-20.
  • Vogel, K. M. (2008). Framing biosecurity: An alternative to the biotech revolution model?. Science and Public Policy35(1), 45-54.
  • Whitford, A. B., & Anderson, D. (2020). Governance landscapes for emerging technologies: The case of cryptocurrencies. Regulation & Governance.
  • Woodson, T. S. (2016). Public private partnerships and emerging technologies: A look at nanomedicine for diseases of poverty. Research Policy45(7), 1410-1418.
  • Youtie, J., Porter, A. L., & Huang, Y. (2017). Early social science research about Big Data. Science and Public Policy44(1), 65-74.
  • Zerbe, N. (2007). Risking regulation, regulating risk: Lessons from the transatlantic biotech dispute. Review of Policy Research24(5), 407-423.