Big data and technology assessment: research topic or competitor?

Journal of Responsible Innovation

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 234-253

  Rieder, Gernot ^a   Simon, Judith ^b  

^a IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HAMBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Big data; interdisciplinarity; responsible research and innovation; technology assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 85044827854     PISSN: 23299460     EISSN: 23299037     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2017.1360718     Document Type: Article

References (138)

1. Abelson, Julia, Pierre-Gerlier, Forest, John, Eyles, Patricia, Smith, Elisabeth, Martin, and Francois-Pierre, Gauvin. 2003. “Deliberations about Deliberative Methods: Issues in the Design and Evaluation of Public Participation Processes.” Social Science & Medicine 57 (2): 239–251.
2. Adam, Barbara., 2005. “Futures in the Making: Contemporary Practices and Sociological Challenges.” Paper presented at the ASA conference. Accessed April 12, 2017. http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/futures/conf_ba_asa230905.pdf.
3. Adams, Vincanne, Michelle, Murphy, and Adele E, Clarke. 2009. “Anticipation: Technoscience, Life, Affect, Temporality.” Subjectivity 28 (1): 246–265.
4. Anderson, Chris., 2008. “The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete.” Wired. Accessed April 12, 2017. https://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory/.
5. Aradau, Claudia, and Tobias, Blanke. 2016. “Politics of Prediction: Security and the Time/Space of Governmentality in the Age of Big Data.” European Journal of Social Theory 20 (3): 373–391.
6. Assefa, Getachew, and Björn M, Frostell. 2007. “Social Sustainability and Social Acceptance in Technology Assessment: A Case Study of Energy Technologies.” Technology in Society 29 (1): 63–78.
7. Barben, Daniel, Erik, Fisher, Cynthia, Selin, and David H., Guston. 2008. “Anticipatory Governance and Nanotechnology: Foresight, Engagement, and Integration.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by Edward J., Hackett, Olga, Amsterdamska, Michael, Lynch, and Judy, Wajcman, 3rd ed., 979–1000. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Barocas, Solon, and Andrew D., Selbst. 2016. “Big Data’s Disparate Impact.” California Law Review 104: 671–732.
9. Bauer, Martin W., 2008. “Survey Research and the Public Understanding of Science.” In Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, edited by Massimiano, Bucchi and Brian, Trench, 111–130. London: Routledge.
10. Bennett, Ira, and Daniel, Sarewitz. 2006. “Too Little, Too Late?: Research Policies on the Societal Implications of Nanotechnology in the United States.” Science as Culture 15 (4): 309–325.
11. Bimber, Bruce., 1996. The Politics of Expertise in Congress. The Rise and Fall of the Office of Technology Assessment. New York: State University of New York Press.
12. boyd, danah., 2016. “Untangling Research and Practice: What Facebook’s “Emotional Contagion” Study Teaches Us.” Research Ethics 12 (1): 4–13.
13. boyd, danah, and Kate, Crawford. 2012. “Critical Questions for Big Data.” Information, Communication & Society 15 (5): 662–679.
14. Braun, Kathrin, Alfred, Moore, Svea Luise, Herrmann, and Sabine, Könninger. 2010. “Science Governance and the Politics of Proper Talk: Governmental Bioethics as a New Technology of Reflexive Government.” Economy and Society 39 (4): 510–533.
15. Brown, Nik, and Mike, Michael. 2003. “A Sociology of Expectations: Retrospecting Prospects and Prospecting Retrospects.” Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 15 (1): 3–18.
16. Burrell, Jenna., 2016. “How the Machine ‘Thinks’: Understanding Opacity in Machine Learning Algorithms.” Big Data & Society 3 (1): 1–12.
17. Cambria, Erik, Dheeraj, Rajagopal, Daniel, Olsher, and Dipankar, Das. 2014. “Big Social Data Analysis.” In Big Data Computing, edited by Rajendra, Akerkar, 401–414. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
18. Chilvers, Jason, and Matthew, Kearnes. 2016. “Participation in the Making. Rethinking Public Engagement in Co-Productionist Terms.” In Remaking Participation. Science, Environment and Emergent Publics, edited by Jason, Chilvers and Matthew, Kearnes, 31–63. Abingdon: Routledge.
19. Christin, Angèle, Alex, Rosenblat, and danah, boyd. 2015. “Courts and Predictive Algorithms.” Workshop Primer. Accessed April 12, 2017. http://www.datacivilrights.org/pubs/2015-1027/Courts_and_Predictive_Algorithms.pdf.
20. Citron, Danielle K., and Frank, Pasquale. 2014. “The Scored Society: Due Process for Automated Predictions.” Washington Law Review 89 (1): 1–33.
21. Collingridge, David., 1980. The Social Control of Technology. London: Frances Pinter.
22. Cotton, Matthew., 2014. Ethics and Technology Assessment: A Participatory Approach. Heidelberg: Springer.
23. Crawford, Kate., 2013. “The Hidden Biases in Big Data.” Harvard Business Review. Accessed April 12, 2017. https://hbr.org/2013/04/the-hidden-biases-in-big-data.
24. Daston, Lorraine J., and Peter, Galison. 2010. Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.
25. Davenport, Thomas H., 2013. “Analytics That Tell You What To Do.” The Wall Street Journal. Accessed April 12, 2017. http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2013/04/03/analytics-that-tell-you-what-to-do/.
26. Davenport, Thomas H., 2015. “The Rise of Automated Analytics.” The Wall Street Journal. Accessed April 12, 2017. http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2015/01/14/the-rise-of-automated-analytics/.
27. Decker, Michael., 2001. “Preface.” In Interdisciplinarity in Technology Assessment. Implementation and its Chances and Limits. Wissenschaftsethik und Technikfolgenbeurteilung Band 11, edited by Michael, Decker, IX–X. Berlin: Springer.
28. Decker, Michael., 2004. “The Role of Ethics in Interdisciplinary Technology Assessment.” Poiesis & Praxis 2: 139–156.
29. Decker, Michael, and Armin, Grunwald. 2001. “Rational Technology Assessment as Interdisciplinary Research.” In Interdisciplinarity in Technology Assessment. Implementation and its Chances and Limits. Wissenschaftsethik und Technikfolgenbeurteilung Band 11, edited by Michael, Decker, 33–60. Berlin: Springer.
30. Ekbia, Hamid, Michael, Mattioli, Inna, Kouper, G., Arave, Ali, Ghazinejad, Timothy, Bowman, Venkata Ratandeep, Suri, Andrew, Tsou, Scott, Weingart, and Cassidy R, Sugimoto. 2015. “Big Data, Bigger Dilemmas: A Critical Review.” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66 (8): 1523–1545.
31. Eklöf, Jenny, and Astrid, Mager. 2013. “Technoscientific Promotion and Biofuel Policy: How the Press and Search Engines Stage the Biofuel Controversy.” Media, Culture & Society 35 (4): 454–471.
32. Esposito, Elena., 2007. Die Fiktion der Wahrscheinlichen Realität. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
33. van Est, Rinie, and Frans, Brom. 2012. “Technology Assessment as an Analytic and Democratic Practice.” In Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, edited by Ruth, Chadwick, Dan, Callahan, and Peter, Singer, 2nd ed., 306–320. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
34. EC (European Commission). 2014. “The Use of Big Data in Public Health Policy and Research. Background information document.” Accessed April 12, 2017. http://ec.europa.eu/health/ehealth/docs/ev_20141118_co07b_en.pdf.
35. EC (European Commission). 2015a. “Data for Policy: When the Haystack is Made of Needles.” Call for Contributions. Accessed April 12, 2017. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/news/data-policy-when-haystack-made-needles-call-contributions.
36. EC (European Commission). 2015b. “ICT-Enabled Public Sector Innovation in Horizon 2020.” Accessed April 12, 2017. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/ict-enabled-public-sector-innovation-horizon-2020.
37. EC (European Commission). 2015c. “Special Eurobarometer 431–Data Protection.” Report. Accessed April 12, 2017. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_431_en.pdf.
38. EC (European Commission). 2016a. “European Cloud Initiative to Give Europe a Global Lead in the Data-Driven Economy.” Press Release. Accessed April 12, 2017. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1408_en.htm.
39. EC (European Commission). 2016b. “Big Data Analytics for Policy Making.” Report. Accessed April 12, 2017. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dg_digit_study_big_data_analytics_for_policy_making.pdf.
40. EC (European Commission). 2016c. “Data for Policy: An Increasingly Global Affair.” Conference Announcement. Accessed April 12, 2017. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/data-policy-increasingly-global-affair.
41. EC (European Commission). n.d. a. “Public Engagement in Responsible Research and Innovation.” Accessed April 12, 2017. https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/node/766.
42. EC (European Commission). n.d. b. “Responsible Research & Innovation.” Accessed April 12, 2017. https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/responsible-research-innovation.
43. European Parliament and Council. 2013. “Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing Horizon 2020–the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014–2020) and repealing Decision No 1982/2006/EC Text with EEA relevance.” Accessed April 12, 2017. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1291&from=EN.
44. Executive Office of the President. 2014. “Big Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values.” Accessed April 12, 2017. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/big_data_privacy_report_may_1_2014.pdf.
45. Executive Office of the President. 2016. “Big Data: A Report on Algorithmic Systems, Opportunity, and Civil Rights.” Accessed April 12, 2017. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/2016_0504_data_discrimination.pdf.
46. Felt, Ulrike, Simone, Schumann, Claudia, Schwarz, and Michael, Strassnig. 2014. “Technology of Imagination: A Card-Based Public Engagement Method for Debating Emerging Technologies.” Qualitative Research 14 (2): 233–251.
47. Forster, Edward M., 1909. “The Machine Stops.” Accessed April 12, 2017. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Machine_Stops.
48. Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome. R., Ravetz. 1993. “Science for the Post-Normal Age.” Futures 25 (7): 739–755.
49. Gandomi, Amir, and Murtaza, Haider. 2015. “Beyond the Hype: Big Data Concepts, Methods, and Analytics.” International Journal of Information Management 35 (2): 137–144.
50. Gartner. 2015. “Gartner Survey Shows More Than 75 Percent of Companies Are Investing or Planning to Invest in Big Data in the Next Two Years.” Accessed April 12, 2017. http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3130817.
51. Grubmüller, Verena, Katharina, Götsch, and Bernhard, Krieger. 2013. “Social Media Analytics for Future Oriented Policy Making.” European Journal of Futures Research 1 (20): 1–9.
52. Grunwald, Armin., 2009. “Technology Assessment: Concepts and Methods.” In Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences, edited by Anthonie, Meijers. Handbook of the Philosophy of Science. 9, 1103–1146. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
53. Grunwald, Armin., 2010. “Future.” In Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society. Volume 1, edited by David H., Guston, 265–267. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
54. Grunwald, Armin., 2012. Technikzukünfte als Medium von Zukunftsdebatten und Technikgestaltung. Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publishing.
55. Grunwald, Armin., 2014. “Technology Assessment for Responsible Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation 1: Innovation Solutions for Global Issues, edited by Jeroen, van den Hoven, Neelke, Doorn, Tsjalling, Swierstra, Bert-Jaap, Koops, and Henny, Romijin, 15–32. Dordrecht: Springer.
56. Guston, David H., 2008. “Preface.” In The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society. Volume 1: Presenting Futures, edited by Erik, Fisher, Cynthia, Selin, and James M., Wetmore, V–VIII. New York: Springer.
57. Guston, David H., 2014. “Understanding ‘Anticipatory Governance’.” Social Studies of Science 44 (2): 218–242.
58. Hardy, Quentin., 2013. “Why Big Data is not Truth.” The New York Times. Accessed April 12, 2017. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/01/why-big-data-is-not-truth/.
59. Harper, Jennifer C., 2013. “Impact of Technology Foresight.” Nesta Working Paper 13/16. Accessed April 12, 2017. http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/1316_impact_of_technology_foresight_final_version.pdf.
60. Hartzog, Woodrow, Gregory, Conti, John, Nelson, and Lisa A., Shay. 2015. “Inefficiently Automated Law Enforcement.” Michigan State Law Review 5: 1763–1796.
61. Hassani, Hossein, and Emmanuel S, Silva. 2015. “Forecasting with Big Data: A Review.” Annals of Data Science 2 (1): 5–19.
62. Hey, Tony, Stewart, Tansley, and Kristin, Tolle, eds. 2009. The Fourth Paradigm. Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Research.
63. Hocke, Peter, and Ortwin, Renn. 2009. “Concerned Public and the Paralysis of Decision-Making: Nuclear Waste Management Policy in Germany.” Journal of Risk Research 12 (7–8): 921–940.
64. IDC (International Data Research). 2014. “The Digital Universe of Opportunities: Rich Data and the Increasing Value of the Internet of Things.” Accessed April 12, 2017. www.emc.com/leadership/digital-universe/2014iview/executive-summary.htm.
65. Involve. 2005. “People & Participation. How to Put Citizens at the Heart of Decision-Making.” Accessed April 12, 2017. http://www.involve.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/People-and-Participation.pdf.
66. Jenkins, Holman W., 2010. “Google and the Search for the Future.” The Wall Street Journal. Accessed April 12, 2017. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704901104575423294099527212.
67. Joss, Simon, and Sergio, Bellucci. 2002. Participatory Technology Assessment: European Perspectives. Gateshead: Athenaeum Press/Centre for the Study of Democracy.
68. Jurgenson, Nathan., 2014. “View from Nowhere.” The New Inquiry. Accessed April 12, 2017. https://thenewinquiry.com/essays/view-from-nowhere/.
69. Kerr, Ian, and Jessica, Earle. 2013. “Prediction, Preemption, Presumption. How Big Data Threatens Big Picture Privacy.” Stanford Law Review Online 66: 65–72.
70. Kitchin, Rob., 2014. “Big Data, New Epistemologies and Paradigm Shifts.” Big Data & Society 1 (1): 1–12.
71. Klüver, Lars, Rasmus Øjvind, Nielsen, and Marie Louise, Jørgensen. 2015. Policy-Oriented Technology Assessment Across Europe. Expanding Capacities. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
72. Lafont, Christina., 2015. “Deliberation, Participation, and Democratic Legitimacy: Should Deliberative Mini-Publics Shape Public Policy?” Journal of Political Philosophy 23 (1): 40–63.
73. Laney, Doug., 2001. “3D Data Management: Controlling Data Volume, Velocity, and Variety.” META Group. Application Delivery Strategies. Accessed April 12, 2017. https://blogs.gartner.com/doug-laney/files/2012/01/ad949-3D-Data-Management-Controlling-Data-Volume-Velocity-and-Variety.pdf.
74. Laney, Doug., 2012. “Deja VVVu: Others Claiming Gartner’s Construct for Big Data.” Gartner Blog Network. Accessed April 12, 2017. http://blogs.gartner.com/doug-laney/deja-vvvue-others-claiming-gartners-volume-velocity-variety-construct-for-big-data/.
75. Lansdall-Welfare, Thomas, Saatviga, Sudhahar, Giuseppe A., Veltri, and Nello, Christianini. 2014. “On the Coverage of Science in the Media: A Big Data Study on the Impact of the Fukushima Disaster.” Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Big Data, 60–66.
76. Law, John., 2009. “Seeing Like a Survey.” Cultural Sociology 3 (2): 239–256.
77. Leonelli, Sabrina., 2014. “What Difference Does Quantity Make? On the Epistemology of Big Data in Biology.” Big Data & Society 1 (1): 1–11.
78. Liebert, Wolfgang, and Jan C., Schmidt. 2010. “Collingridge’s Dilemma and Technoscience. An Attempt to Provide a Clarification from the Perspective of the Philosophy of Science.” Poiesis & Praxis 7: 55–71.
79. Lohr, Steve., 2012. “The Age of Big Data.” The New York Times. Accessed April 12, 2017. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/sunday-review/big-datas-impact-in-the-world.html?_r=0.
80. Lyon, David., 2014. “Surveillance, Snowden, and Big Data: Capacities, Consequences, Critique.” Big Data and Society 1 (2): 1–13.
81. Macnaghten, Phil, Sarah, Davies, and Matthew, Kearnes. 2010. “Narrative and Public Engagement: Some Findings from the DEEPEN Project.” In Understanding Public Debate on Nanotechnologies. Options for Framing Public Policy, edited by René, von Schomberg and Sarah, Davies, 13–29. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
82. Marres, Noortje, and Richard, Rogers. 2000. “Depluralising the Web and Repluralising Public Debate: The Case of the GM Food Debate on the Web.” In Preferred Placement: Knowledge Politics on the Web, edited by Richard, Rogers, 113–135. Maastricht: Jan van Eyck Editions.
83. Mayer-Schönberger, Viktor, and Kenneth, Cukier. 2013. Big Data. A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, And Think. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
84. Meyer, Morgan., 2010. “The Rise of the Knowledge Broker.” Science Communication 32 (1): 118–127.
85. Michalek, Tomáš, Lenka, Hebáková, Leonhard, Hennen, Constanze, Scherz, Linda, Nierling, and Julia, Hahn. 2014. “Technology Assessment and Policy Areas of Great Transitions.” Proceedings from the PACITA 2013 Conference in Prague. Accessed April 12, 2017. http://www.pacitaproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Conference-Book.pdf.
86. Moretti, Franco., 2013. Distant Reading. London: Verso.
87. Morozov, Evgeny., 2013a. “The Real Privacy Problem.” MIT Technology Review. Accessed April 12, 2017. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/520426/the-real-privacy-problem/.
88. Morozov, Evgeny., 2013b. To Save Everything, Click Here. The Folly of Technological Solutionism. New York: Public Affairs.
89. Mustafaraj, Eni, Samantha, Finn, Carolyn, Whitlock, and Panagiotis T, Metaxas. 2011. “Vocal Minority Versus Silent Majority: Discovering the Opinions of the Long Tail.” Paper presented at the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk, and Trust, and IEEE International Conference on Social Computing, 103–110.
90. Nentwich, Michael., 2016. “Parliamentary Technology Assessment Institutions and Practices. A Systematic Comparison of 15 Members of the EPTA Network.” ITA manu:scripts 16-02. Accessed April 12, 2017. http://epub.oeaw.ac.at/ita/ita-manuscript/ita_16_02.pdf.
91. Newell, William H., 2010. “Undergraduate General Education.” In The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, edited by Robert, Frodeman, Julie, Thompson Klein, Carl, Mitchman, and Britt J., Holbrook, 360–371. New York: Oxford University Press.
92. Newman, Nathan., 2015. “Data Justice: Taking on Big Data as an Economic Justice Issue.” Data Justice Report. Accessed April 12, 2017. http://www.datajustice.org/sites/default/files/Data%20Justice-%20Taking%20on%20Big%20Data%20as%20an%20Economic%20Justice%20Issue.pdf.
93. Nguyen, Khanh-Ly, Shin, Byung-Joo, and Seong Joon, Yoo. 2016. “Hot Topic Detection and Technology Trend Tracking for Patents Utilizing Term Frequency and Proportional Document Frequency and Semantic Information.” Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Big Data and Smart Computing (BigComp), 223–230.
94. Nowotny, Helga, Peter, Scott, and Michael, Gibbon. 2001. Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
95. O’Neil, Cathy., 2016. Weapons of Math Destruction. How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. New York: Crown.
96. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2015. Data-Driven Innovation: Big Data for Growth and Well-Being. Paris: OECD Publishing.
97. st PACITA Project Conference.” Book of Abstracts. Accessed April 12, 2017. http://www.pacitaproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Book-of-abstracts-Prague.pdf.
98. nd European TA Conference.” Book of Abstracts. Accessed April 12, 2017. http://berlinconference.pacitaproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Book-of-Abstracts-UPDATED3.pdf.
99. Pan, Lei, Sacha, Boucherie, and Shereen, Hanafi. 2015. “Interdisciplinary Research: How Do 9 Nations Compare?” Elsevier Connect. Accessed April 12, 2017. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/interdisciplinary-research-how-do-9-nations-compare.
100. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. 2001. “Open Channels: Public Dialogue in Science and Technology.” Report No. 153. Accessed April 12, 2017. http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/pr153.pdf.
101. Pentland, Alex., 2012. “Society’s Nervous System: Building Effective Government, Energy, and Public Health Systems.” IEEE Computer 45 (1): 31–38.
102. Pentland, Alex., 2014. Social Physics. How Good Ideas Spread–The Lessons from a New Science. New York: Penguin Press.
103. Pew Research Center. 2014. “Public Perceptions of Privacy and Security in the Post-Snowden Era.” Accessed April 12, 2017. http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2014/11/PI_PublicPerceptionsofPrivacy_111214.pdf.
104. Pew Research Center. 2015. “Americans’ Attitudes about Privacy, Security and Surveillance.” Accessed April 12, 2017. http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/05/Privacy-and-Security-Attitudes-5.19.15_FINAL.pdf.
105. Porter, Theodore M., 1995. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
106. Porter, Alan L., 2010. “Technology Foresight: Types and Methods.” International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 6 (1): 36–45.
107. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. 2014. “Big Data and Privacy: A Technological Perspective.” Accessed April 12, 2017. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_big_data_and_privacy_-_may_2014.pdf.
108. Press, Gil., 2014. “12 Big Data Definitions: What’s Yours?” Forbes. Accessed April 12, 2017. https://www.forbes.com/sites/gilpress/2014/09/03/12-big-data-definitions-whats-yours/#3bec4cba13ae.
109. Presser, Lizzie, Maia, Hruskova, Helen, Rowbottom, and Jesse, Kancir. 2015. “Care.data and Access to UK Health Records: Patient Privacy and Public Trust.” Technology Science. Accessed April 12, 2017. http://techscience.org/a/2015081103/.
110. Rieder, Gernot, and Judith, Simon. 2016. “Datatrust: Or, the Political Quest for Numerical Evidence and the Epistemologies of Big Data.” Big Data & Society 3 (1): 1–6.
111. Rieder, Gernot, and Judith, Simon. 2017. “Big Data: A New Empiricism and its Epistemic and Socio-Political Consequences.” In Berechenbarkeit der Welt? Philosophie und Wissenschaft im Zeitalter von Big Data, edited by Wolfgang, Pietsch, Jörg, Wernecke, and Maximilian, Ott, 85–105. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
112. Rieder, Bernhard, and Guillaume, Sire. 2014. “Conflicts of Interest and Incentives to Bias: A Microeconomic Critique of Google’s Tangled Position on the Web.” New Media & Society 16 (2): 195–211.
113. Rip, Arie., 1986. “Controversies as Informal Technology Assessment.” Science Communication 8 (2): 349–371.
114. Rip, Arie., 2012. “Futures of Technology Assessment.” In Der Systemblick auf Innovation. Technikfolgenabschätzung in der Technikgestaltung, edited by Michael, Decker, Armin, Grunwald, and Martin, Knapp, 29–39. Berlin: edition sigma.
115. Rittel, Horst W. J., and Melvin M., Webber. 1973. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy Sciences 4: 155–169.
116. Rommetveit, Kjetil, Kristrun, Gunnarsdóttir, Kim Sune, Jepsen, Thora Margareta, Bertilsson, Fanny, Verrax, and Roger, Strand. 2013. “The Technolife Project: An Experimental Approach to New Ethical Frameworks for Emerging Science and Technology.” International Journal of Sustainable Development 16 (1/2): 23–45.
117. Rose, Nikolas., 1999. Power of Freedom. Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
118. Rubinstein, Ira., 2013. “Big Data: The End of Privacy or a New Beginning?” International Data Privacy Law 3 (2): 74–87.
119. Sadowski, Jathan., 2015. “Office of Technology Assessment: History, Implementation, and Participatory Critique.” Technology in Society 42: 9–20.
120. Schmidt, Jan C., 2008. “Towards a Philosophy of Interdisciplinarity. An Attempt to Provide a Classification and Clarification.” Poiesis & Praxis 5 (1): 53–69.
121. Selin, Cynthia., 2011. “Negotiating Plausibility: Intervening in the Future of Nanotechnology.” Science and Engineering Ethics 17: 723–737.
122. Silver, Nate., 2012. The Signal and the Noise. Why So Many Prediction Fail–But Some Don’t. New York: Penguin Press.
123. Simon, Judith., 2015. “Distributed Epistemic Responsibility in a Hyperconnected Era.” In The Onlife Manifesto: Being Human in a Hyperconnected Era, edited by Luciano, Floridi, 145–159. Charm: Springer.
124. Simon, Judith., 2017. “Value-Sensitive Design and Responsible Innovation.” In Methods for the Ethics of Technology, edited by Sven O., Hansson, 219–236. London: Rowman and Littlefield International.
125. Singh, Vivek Kumar, Sumit Kumar, Banshal, Khushboo, Singhal, and Ashraf, Uddin. 2015. “Scientometric Mapping of Research on ‘Big Data’.” Scientometrics 105 (2): 727–741.
126. Statista. 2016. “Forecast of Big Data Market Size, Based on Revenue, from 2011 to 2026 (in Billion U.S. Dollars).” Accessed April 12, 2017. http://www.statista.com/statistics/254266/global-big-data-market-forecast/.
127. Stirling, Andy., 2014. “Disciplinary Dilemma: Working Across Research Silos Is Harder than It Looks.” The Guardian. Accessed April 12, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2014/jun/11/science-policy-research-silos-interdisciplinarity.
128. Teknologirådet. 2015. “Predictive Policing: Can Data Analysis Help the Police to Be in the Right Place at the Right Time?” Accessed April 12, 2017. https://teknologiradet.no/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2013/08/Predicitve-policing.pdf.
129. Thompson Klein, Julie., 2001. “The Discourse of Transdisciplinarity: An Expanding Global Field.” In Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem Solving among Science, Technology, and Society, edited by Julie, Thompson Klein, Walter, Grossenbacher-Mansuy, Rudolf, Häberli, Bill, Alain, Roland W., Scholz, and Myrtha, Welti, 35–44. Basel: Spring Basel AG.
130. Turow, Joseph, Michael, Hennessy, and Nora, Draper. 2015. “The Tradeoff Fallacy. How Marketers Are Misrepresenting American Consumers and Opening Them Up to Exploitation. A Report from the Annenberg School for Communication.” Accessed April 12, 2017. https://www.asc.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/TradeoffFallacy_1.pdf.
131. Upturn. 2014. “Civil Rights, Big Data, and Our Algorithmic Future. A September 2014 Report on Social Justice and Technology.” Accessed April 12, 2017. https://bigdata.fairness.io/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2015-04-20-Civil-Rights-Big-Data-and-Our-Algorithmic-Future-v1.2.pdf.
132. Vance, Ashlee., 2010. “EMC Takes a Big-Data Swipe at Oracle, H.P. and I.B.M.” The New York Times. Accessed April 12, 2017. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/emc-takes-a-big-data-swipe-at-oracle-h-p-and-i-b-m/.
133. Voß, Jan-Peter, Bernhard, Truffer, and Kornelia, Konrad. 2006. “Sustainability Foresight: Reflexive Governance in the Transformation of Utility Systems.” In Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development, edited by Jan-Peter, Voß, Dierk, Bauknecht, and René, Kemp, 162–188. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
134. Weltevrede, Esther, and Erik, Borra. 2016. “Platform Affordances and Data Practices: The Value of Dispute on Wikipedia.” Big Data & Society 3 (1): 1–16.
135. Wesselink, Anna, Jouni, Paavola, Oliver, Fritsch, and Ortwin, Renn. 2011. “Rationales for Public Participation in Environmental Policy and Governance: Practitioners’ Perspectives.” Environment and Planning A 43 (11): 2688–2704.
136. Wilsdon, James, Robert, Doubleday, and James, Hynard. 2015. “Future Directions for Scientific Advice in Europe.” In Future Directions for Scientific Advice, edited by James, Wilsdon and Robert, Doubleday. Cambridge: Centre for Science and Policy. Accessed April 12, 2017. http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/54004/4/future-directions-for-scientific-advice-in-europe-v10.pdf.
137. Wood, Fred B., 1982. “The Status of Technology Assessment. A View from the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 22: 211–222.
138. Youtie, Jan, Alan L., Porter, and Ying, Huan. 2017. “Early Social Science Research about Big Data.” Science and Public Policy 44 (1): 65–74.