COVID-19接触者追踪应用程序和集体行动的治理:欧洲及其他地区的社会推动、审议和团结

IF 2.2 4区 管理学 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Policy Studies Pub Date : 2022-10-10 DOI:10.1080/01442872.2022.2130884
K. Sideri, Barbara Prainsack
{"title":"COVID-19接触者追踪应用程序和集体行动的治理:欧洲及其他地区的社会推动、审议和团结","authors":"K. Sideri, Barbara Prainsack","doi":"10.1080/01442872.2022.2130884","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT During the COVID-19 pandemic, Digital Contact Tracing (DCT) tools were deployed by governments in Europe and beyond as a novel mobile technology to assist traditional manual contact tracing to track individuals who have come in close contact with an infected person. The public debate on this topic focused strongly on the protection of individual privacy. While this debate is important, it fails to address important governance questions – such as, for example, that DCT tools took on the role of social nudges, namely, tools of soft regulation that calibrate information flows so as to “push” people to act in ways that promote collective purposes. Social nudges include a range of norms and values that, however, are built into the technological and social features of the nudge, rather than rendering them open to public scrutiny and debate. Although the use of contact tracing apps is being phased out, the digitization of contact tracing can be seen as a case study of the broader trend towards digitization of the provision of health services. Debates of their governance thus have broader implications for the governance of data driven tools deployed for public health purposes in times of crisis.","PeriodicalId":47179,"journal":{"name":"Policy Studies","volume":"98 1","pages":"132 - 153"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"COVID-19 contact tracing apps and the governance of collective action: social nudges, deliberation, and solidarity in Europe and beyond\",\"authors\":\"K. Sideri, Barbara Prainsack\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/01442872.2022.2130884\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT During the COVID-19 pandemic, Digital Contact Tracing (DCT) tools were deployed by governments in Europe and beyond as a novel mobile technology to assist traditional manual contact tracing to track individuals who have come in close contact with an infected person. The public debate on this topic focused strongly on the protection of individual privacy. While this debate is important, it fails to address important governance questions – such as, for example, that DCT tools took on the role of social nudges, namely, tools of soft regulation that calibrate information flows so as to “push” people to act in ways that promote collective purposes. Social nudges include a range of norms and values that, however, are built into the technological and social features of the nudge, rather than rendering them open to public scrutiny and debate. Although the use of contact tracing apps is being phased out, the digitization of contact tracing can be seen as a case study of the broader trend towards digitization of the provision of health services. Debates of their governance thus have broader implications for the governance of data driven tools deployed for public health purposes in times of crisis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47179,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy Studies\",\"volume\":\"98 1\",\"pages\":\"132 - 153\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2022.2130884\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy Studies","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2022.2130884","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间,欧洲及其他地区的政府部署了数字接触者追踪(DCT)工具,作为一种新型移动技术,协助传统的人工接触者追踪,以追踪与感染者密切接触的个人。关于这一话题的公开辩论主要集中在保护个人隐私上。尽管这场辩论很重要,但它未能解决重要的治理问题——例如,DCT工具扮演了社会推动的角色,即软监管工具,它校准信息流,以“推动”人们以促进集体目标的方式行事。社会推动包括一系列规范和价值观,然而,这些规范和价值观是内置在推动的技术和社会特征中,而不是将它们开放给公众监督和辩论。虽然接触者追踪应用程序的使用正在逐步淘汰,但接触者追踪的数字化可被视为卫生服务提供数字化这一更广泛趋势的一个案例研究。因此,关于其治理的辩论对危机时期为公共卫生目的部署的数据驱动工具的治理具有更广泛的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
COVID-19 contact tracing apps and the governance of collective action: social nudges, deliberation, and solidarity in Europe and beyond
ABSTRACT During the COVID-19 pandemic, Digital Contact Tracing (DCT) tools were deployed by governments in Europe and beyond as a novel mobile technology to assist traditional manual contact tracing to track individuals who have come in close contact with an infected person. The public debate on this topic focused strongly on the protection of individual privacy. While this debate is important, it fails to address important governance questions – such as, for example, that DCT tools took on the role of social nudges, namely, tools of soft regulation that calibrate information flows so as to “push” people to act in ways that promote collective purposes. Social nudges include a range of norms and values that, however, are built into the technological and social features of the nudge, rather than rendering them open to public scrutiny and debate. Although the use of contact tracing apps is being phased out, the digitization of contact tracing can be seen as a case study of the broader trend towards digitization of the provision of health services. Debates of their governance thus have broader implications for the governance of data driven tools deployed for public health purposes in times of crisis.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Policy Studies
Policy Studies PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
4.50%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: These changes at the structural level of the global system have impacted upon the work of public organizations either directly or indirectly and have broadened the field of action in policy studies. It has five main areas of intellectual interest: 1.To broaden the lens of policy analysis through the publication of research which locates policy-making within a theoretical, historical or comparative perspective. 2.To widen the field of enquiry in policy analysis through the publication of research that examines policy issues in a British, comparative, international or global context. 3.To promote constructive debate on theoretical, methodological and empirical issues in policy analysis.
期刊最新文献
Opposition windows in Delhi’s water utility privatization: going beyond the multiple streams framework The origins of social protection in healthcare: classifying healthcare systems at introduction in 165 countries Digital political campaigning: contemporary challenges and regulation Do intergovernmental interactions increase government spending? Institutional diversity and the immigrant wage gap? A comparison between the German and British experience with statutory minimum wages
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1