The shift from governance of to governance by information infrastructures has major implications for innovation policy. With algorithmic governance, regimes of inclusion/exclusion “sink” in information infrastructures that act as decisionmakers. Inclusive governance of innovation thus needs to dig deeper into technological details. This chapter focuses on one major aspect that characterizes algorithmic decision-making, namely, the overlap between policy and practice. Drawing upon the innovation dance metaphor, we ask whether any space for theory can be acknowledged when algorithmic governance tightly couples policy and practice. We first attempt to theoretically answer this question by introducing the Science and Technology Studies notion of “de-scription” as a translation of rules and behaviors from extrasomatic material devices to explicit textual instructions. We propose that space for innovation theory can be conceived of as a descriptive activity.We then exemplify the overlapping argument against the case of blockchain technologies. Blockchains are the algorithmic software underpinning peer-to-peer electronic payment systems – the most renowned of which is Bitcoin. We argue that blockchains “inscribe trust” into software and thus constitute self-standing governance mechanisms. By analyzing a recent controversy in the Bitcoin community, we show that space for theory is more likely to emerge when a controversy arises, which requires description in order to recruit new allies. This evidence suggests that the relationship between theory and inclusion might be inverted: inclusion might not be the outcome of theory, but space for theory is the result of controversies in which opposite factions carry out recruitment strategies.

Mining Governance Mechanisms: Innovation Policy, Practice, and Theory Facing Algorithmic Decision-Making

Pelizza, Annalisa
;
2017

Abstract

The shift from governance of to governance by information infrastructures has major implications for innovation policy. With algorithmic governance, regimes of inclusion/exclusion “sink” in information infrastructures that act as decisionmakers. Inclusive governance of innovation thus needs to dig deeper into technological details. This chapter focuses on one major aspect that characterizes algorithmic decision-making, namely, the overlap between policy and practice. Drawing upon the innovation dance metaphor, we ask whether any space for theory can be acknowledged when algorithmic governance tightly couples policy and practice. We first attempt to theoretically answer this question by introducing the Science and Technology Studies notion of “de-scription” as a translation of rules and behaviors from extrasomatic material devices to explicit textual instructions. We propose that space for innovation theory can be conceived of as a descriptive activity.We then exemplify the overlapping argument against the case of blockchain technologies. Blockchains are the algorithmic software underpinning peer-to-peer electronic payment systems – the most renowned of which is Bitcoin. We argue that blockchains “inscribe trust” into software and thus constitute self-standing governance mechanisms. By analyzing a recent controversy in the Bitcoin community, we show that space for theory is more likely to emerge when a controversy arises, which requires description in order to recruit new allies. This evidence suggests that the relationship between theory and inclusion might be inverted: inclusion might not be the outcome of theory, but space for theory is the result of controversies in which opposite factions carry out recruitment strategies.
2017
Handbook of Cyber-Development, Cyber-Democracy, and Cyber-Defense
1
23
Pelizza, Annalisa; Kuhlmann, Stefan
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
MiningGovernance_Pelizza_Kuhlmann_ACCEPTED.pdf

Open Access dal 07/10/2020

Tipo: Postprint
Licenza: Licenza per accesso libero gratuito
Dimensione 380.77 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
380.77 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/698704
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact