FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1506821114> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1506821114 endingPage "114" @default.
• W1506821114 startingPage "109" @default.
• W1506821114 abstract "What kind of research does Policy & Internet publish? This is a question that has been on my mind frequently since I joined the journal as an editor last September. In this editorial, I will approach the question from two angles. First, I will examine the question empirically, through a brief thematic analysis of all the articles that the journal has published so far, over the 5 years since its launch in 2009. Rather than simply take the journal's stated aims at face value, I will look at what themes and approaches have come out strongest in practice, and consider how the result compares with the original vision. Second, I will consider what kind of research the journal is likely to publish in the future, both in terms of what kind of trends can be seen emerging in policy and Internet research, as well as in terms of what challenges outlined in the journal's original vision that continue to be pertinent today are yet to be fully addressed. In outlining the future agenda, I will also highlight my own focus areas as an editor. In the journal's inaugural issue, founding Editor-in-Chief Helen Margetts outlined what are essentially two central premises behind Policy & Internet's launch. The first is that “we cannot understand, analyze or make public policy without understanding the technological, social and economic shifts associated with the Internet” (Margetts, 2009, p. 1). It is simply not possible to consider public policy today without some regard for the intertwining of information technologies with everyday life and society. The second premise is that the rise of the Internet is associated with shifts in how policy itself is made. In particular, Margetts proposed that impacts of Internet adoption would be felt in the tools through which policies are effected, and the values that policy processes embody. The purpose of the Policy & Internet journal was to take up these two challenges: the public policy implications of Internet-related social change, and Internet-related changes in policy processes themselves. In recognition of the inherently multidisciplinary nature of policy research, the journal is designed to act as a meeting place for all kinds of disciplinary and methodological approaches. Margetts predicted that methodological approaches based on large-scale transactional data, network analysis, and experimentation would turn out to be particularly important for policy and Internet studies. Driving the advancement of these methods was therefore the journal's third purpose. Today, the journal has reached a significant milestone: over one hundred high-quality, peer-reviewed articles published. This seems an opportune moment to take stock of what kind of research we have published in practice, and see how it stacks up against the original vision expressed by Margetts. To do this, I performed a simple thematic analysis of peer-reviewed articles published in the journal from issue 1 of 2009 up to issue 1 of 2014, coding and categorizing themes and topics apparent in the articles' titles and abstracts. Rather than relying on formal subject categories or author keywords, I picked the codes from the data and created the categories by combining similar codes iteratively. The advantage of this method is that it allows categories to emerge from the data—though the results will naturally also be colored by my own preconceptions. For the sake of simplicity, each article was assigned into exactly one final category, though in practice, articles often touch on several themes. At the most general level, this journal's articles fall into three broad categories: the Internet and public policy (48 articles), the Internet and policy processes (51 articles), and discussion of novel methodologies (10 articles). The Internet and public policy category can be further broken down into a number of subcategories, which I will call research streams. One of the most prominent of these streams is fundamental rights in a mediated society (11 articles), which focuses particularly on privacy and freedom of expression. Related streams are children and child protection (six articles), copyright and piracy (five articles), and general e-commerce regulation (six articles), including taxation. A recently emerged stream in the journal is hate speech and cybersecurity (four articles). An enduring research stream in the public policy category is Internet governance, or the regulation of technical infrastructures and economic institutions that constitute the material basis of the Internet (seven articles). In recent years, the research agenda in this stream has been influenced by national policy debates around broadband market competition and network neutrality (Hahn & Singer, 2013). Another enduring stream deals with the Internet and public health (eight articles). The second main category of research, the Internet and policy processes, can be divided into four streams. The largest of these is e-participation, or the role of the Internet in engaging citizens in national and local government policy processes, through methods such as online deliberation, petition platforms, and voting advice applications (18 articles). Two other streams are e-government, or the use of Internet technologies for government service provision (seven articles), and e-politics, or the use of the Internet in mainstream politics, such as election campaigning and communications of the political elite (nine articles). The fourth stream, and one that has gained pace especially during recent years, is online collective action, or the role of the Internet in activism, “clicktivism,” and protest campaigns (16 articles). Last year the journal published a special issue on online collective action (Calderaro & Kavada, 2013), and this current issue includes an invited article on digital civics by Ethan Zuckerman, director of MIT's Center for Civic Media, with commentary from prominent scholars of Internet activism. A trajectory discernible in this stream over the years is a movement from discussing mere potentials toward analyzing real impacts—including critical analyses of the sometimes inflated expectations and “democracy bubbles” created by digital media (Bryer, 2011; Karpf, 2012; Shulman, 2009). The final category, discussion of novel methodologies, consists of articles that develop, analyze, and reflect critically on methodological innovations in policy and Internet studies. Empirical articles published in the journal have made use of a wide range of conventional and novel research methods, from interviews and surveys to automated content analysis and advanced network analysis methods. But of those articles where methodology is the topic rather than merely the tool, the majority deal with so-called “big data,” or the use of large-scale transactional data sources in research, commerce, and evidence-based public policy (nine articles). The journal recently devoted a special issue to the potentials and pitfalls of big data for public policy (Margetts & Sutcliffe, 2013), which was based on selected contributions to the journal's 2012 conference on big data.11 Internet, Politics, and Policy 2012: Big Data, Big Challenges? September 20–21, 2012, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford. http://ipp.oii.ox.ac.uk/2012. In general, the notion of data science and public policy is a growing research theme. The above analysis suggests that research published in the journal over the last 5 years has followed the broad contours of the original vision. The two challenges, namely policy implications of Internet-related social change and Internet-related changes in policy processes, have both been addressed. In particular, research has addressed the implications of the Internet's increasing role in social and political life. The journal has also furthered the development of new methodologies, especially the use of online network analysis techniques and large-scale transactional data sources (which has since come to be known as “big data”). As expected, authors from a wide range of disciplines have contributed their perspectives to the journal, and engaged with other disciplines, while retaining the rigor of their own specialisms. The geographic scope of the contributions has been truly global, with authors and research contexts from six continents. I am also pleased to note that a characteristic common to all the published articles is polish; this is no doubt in part due to the high level of editorial support that the journal is able to afford to authors, including copyediting. The justifications for the journal's establishment 5 years ago have clearly been borne out, so that the journal now performs an important function in fostering and bringing together research on the public policy implications of an increasingly Internet-mediated society. What kind of research will the journal be publishing over the next 5 years? I will address the question from two perspectives: what are some emerging trends in research that are likely to occupy a growing share of the journal's pages thanks to their momentum in the field? And what are themes that, although not necessarily ascendant in the field at the moment, this journal would like to encourage scholars to tackle? In answering the latter question, I will draw on the journal's stated aims and scope as well as on my own areas of emphasis as an editor. In the analysis above, I noted that some themes seemed to be gaining momentum. I especially highlighted online activism, cybersecurity, and methodological discussions around data science. The online activism stream will likely continue to provide accounts of the Internet's role in political crises and struggles around the world, as well as increasingly sophisticated analyses of how Internet-mediated activity meshes with larger national, local, and regional political landscapes. Cybersecurity research is likewise likely to grow rapidly in size and sophistication given today's geopolitical landscape, and this journal will continue to publish on its policy implications. In methodological discussions, focus in the near future is likely to be on the limitations and troubling implications of big data, following initial enthusiasm. No doubt staples such as political campaigning, citizen engagement, Internet governance, and fundamental rights will also remain highly active themes on this journal's pages. Tim Berners-Lee has recently lent his weight in the popular media to highlighting the continued importance of fundamental rights online. However, recent changes in the international political landscape may be forcing scholars to approach all these themes from a new perspective. Within the past 12 months, the exposing of massive state surveillance programs in the United States and United Kingdom, as well as events surrounding Russia's annexation of Crimea, have brought to the fore the role of the Internet as an extension of state power, territoriality, and national identity (Jiang & Okamoto, 2014; Shklovski & Struthers, 2010). Scholars have often tended to approach Internet policy questions from a perspective of internationalism and standardization, but in the post-Snowden world, it may be increasingly necessary to examine them through the lens of divergent “electronic regimes” (Santaniello & Amoretti, 2013) that reflect states' different geopolitical interests, and different approaches to the role of the Internet in domestic economic and social development. This means that more attention needs to be given to specific geographic and political contexts, including those of Europe's fragmented regimes, Russia, India, and also China, the subject of a forthcoming special issue call for articles. A trend of emphasizing national differences and regimes over the Internet's transnationality and universality was not necessarily anticipated 5 years ago, but it seems likely to be increasingly visible in the journal's pages in the coming years. In many ways, this “geopolitical turn” in policy and Internet studies represents a return to the study of technonationalism (Samuels, 1994) and a retreat from some of the more progressive societal vistas that Internet technologies afford. But at the same time, digital technologies will also continue to be implicated in social and economic changes that don't necessarily respect national or political boundaries. Part of this journal's mission is to be forward looking and identify emerging Internet-related shifts in the economy and education, in public life, and in working life, in order to anticipate their potential policy implications. For example, Internet-enabled innovations today emerging in the sphere of economic life include resource sharing and collaborative consumption (Botsman & Rogers, 2010), online job markets and online outsourcing (Leung, 2014), crowdfunding, smart contracts, virtual currencies, and virtual “property” in online games and services (Lehdonvirta & Virtanen, 2010). Some of these innovations will turn out to be over-hyped, short-lived, or simply old things under new names. But some of them may turn out to have momentous implications to industries and policies in the way that Napster, telework, and mobile phones had in the past—across national and political boundaries. In the inaugural editorial, Margetts (2009) highlighted work, finance, exchange, and economic themes in general as being among the prominent areas of Internet-related social change that are likely to have significant future policy implications. My analysis of the articles published to date shows that for the greatest part, these implications remain to be addressed. This is an area that the journal can encourage authors to tackle better. As an editor, I will work to direct attention to this opportunity, and welcome manuscript submissions on all aspects of Internet-enabled economic change and its policy implications. This work will be kickstarted by the journal's biennial conference this September, which this year focuses on crowdsourcing and online labor.22 Internet, Policy & Politics 2014: Crowdsourcing for Politics and Policy. September 25–26, 2014, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford. http://ipp.oii.ox.ac.uk/2014/. Economic themes and articles will also be highlighted alongside other themes in the journal's blog, launched last year.33 The Policy and Internet Blog. http://blogs.oii.ox.ac.uk/policy/. The blog will help us expand the reach and impact of research published in Policy & Internet to wider academic and practitioner communities, promote more discussion, and increase authors' citations. After all, publication is only the start of an article's public life: we want people reading, debating, citing, and offering responses to the research that we (and our excellent reviewers) feel is important, and worth publishing. Vili Lehdonvirta, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford [vili.lehdonvirta@oii.ox.ac.uk]." @default.
• W1506821114 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1506821114 creator A5058448921 @default.
• W1506821114 date "2014-06-01" @default.
• W1506821114 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W1506821114 title "Past and Emerging Themes in Policy and Internet Studies" @default.
• W1506821114 cites W1586297217 @default.
• W1506821114 cites W1903868356 @default.
• W1506821114 cites W1953668019 @default.
• W1506821114 cites W1972363002 @default.
• W1506821114 cites W1996673766 @default.
• W1506821114 cites W2004339768 @default.
• W1506821114 cites W2042482965 @default.
• W1506821114 cites W2145059899 @default.
• W1506821114 cites W2150697591 @default.
• W1506821114 cites W2160001677 @default.
• W1506821114 cites W2332740086 @default.
• W1506821114 cites W3123612838 @default.
• W1506821114 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/1944-2866.poi361" @default.
• W1506821114 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W1506821114 type Work @default.
• W1506821114 sameAs 1506821114 @default.
• W1506821114 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W1506821114 countsByYear W15068211142016 @default.
• W1506821114 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1506821114 hasAuthorship W1506821114A5058448921 @default.
• W1506821114 hasBestOaLocation W15068211141 @default.
• W1506821114 hasConcept C108827166 @default.
• W1506821114 hasConcept C110875604 @default.
• W1506821114 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W1506821114 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1506821114 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1506821114 hasConceptScore W1506821114C108827166 @default.
• W1506821114 hasConceptScore W1506821114C110875604 @default.
• W1506821114 hasConceptScore W1506821114C136764020 @default.
• W1506821114 hasConceptScore W1506821114C17744445 @default.
• W1506821114 hasConceptScore W1506821114C41008148 @default.
• W1506821114 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W1506821114 hasLocation W15068211141 @default.
• W1506821114 hasOpenAccess W1506821114 @default.
• W1506821114 hasPrimaryLocation W15068211141 @default.
• W1506821114 hasRelatedWork W1871685927 @default.
• W1506821114 hasRelatedWork W1914782968 @default.
• W1506821114 hasRelatedWork W2020046386 @default.
• W1506821114 hasRelatedWork W2069131781 @default.
• W1506821114 hasRelatedWork W2258978502 @default.
• W1506821114 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W1506821114 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W1506821114 hasRelatedWork W564884363 @default.
• W1506821114 hasRelatedWork W582605872 @default.
• W1506821114 hasRelatedWork W622965250 @default.
• W1506821114 hasVolume "6" @default.
• W1506821114 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1506821114 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1506821114 magId "1506821114" @default.
• W1506821114 workType "article" @default.