Publications of Kenneth S. Rogerson    :chronological  alphabetical  combined listing:

%% Journal Articles   
@article{fds348829,
   Author = {Vakarelov, O and Rogerson, K},
   Title = {The Transparency Game: Government Information, Access, and
             Actionability},
   Journal = {Philosophy and Technology},
   Volume = {33},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {71-92},
   Year = {2020},
   Month = {March},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13347-019-0340-z},
   Abstract = {Democratic governments might be required by law to
             disseminate information to the people. This is called
             governmental transparency. What is the burden of
             transparency? We propose a “pragmatic information theory
             of communication” that places information accessibility as
             a foundation of transparency. Using a game model—the
             Transparency Game—we show that the pragmatic theory is the
             only one that makes it difficult for governments to appear
             transparent (transparency de vidi) while not actually being
             transparent (transparency de facto). There are two important
             consequences of understanding transparency through the
             theory: (1) Accessible information must be actionable, and
             (2) cognitive science plays a vital role in assessing the
             accessibility of information. These consequences can have
             implications for public policies that promote
             transparency.},
   Doi = {10.1007/s13347-019-0340-z},
   Key = {fds348829}
}

@article{fds372304,
   Author = {Rogerson, KS and Heiss, A},
   Title = {Sources of Advocacy: When Does the Media Give Voice to
             Egyptian Advocacy NGOs?},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {August},
   Key = {fds372304}
}

@article{fds299368,
   Author = {Rogerson, K and Milton, D},
   Title = {A Policymaking Process "Tug-of-War": National Information
             Security Policies in Comparative Perspective},
   Journal = {Journal of Information Technology and Politics},
   Volume = {10},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {462-476},
   Publisher = {Informa UK Limited},
   Year = {2013},
   Month = {October},
   ISSN = {1933-1681},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2013.843989},
   Abstract = {There is tension between the ideal of government
             transparency and the need to protect vital information. What
             types of information do governments protect on national
             security grounds? What arguments do governments use to
             justify the protection of this information? What will
             influence an open government information policy as opposed
             to a closed information policy? Through an examination of
             more than 250 information security-related policies from
             around the world, it is clear that (a) all governments limit
             the flows of information, (b) there are different reasons
             for this, and (c) the reasons are not always correlated to
             government type. In other words, sometimes democracies and
             authoritarian countries limit the same types of information
             issues. The policies and policy discussions are dependent on
             a variety of actors and which actor(s) wield the strongest
             influence at the time, which makes them often get caught up
             in a policy "tug-of-war" that most often results in
             incremental policy change and implementation. © 2013
             Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.},
   Doi = {10.1080/19331681.2013.843989},
   Key = {fds299368}
}

@article{fds299373,
   Author = {Rogerson, K},
   Title = {"The 'Free' Flow of Information: Global Attempts at Internet
             Censorship and its Impact on Civil Society"},
   Journal = {Politics and Internet},
   Year = {2012},
   Key = {fds299373}
}

@article{fds299374,
   Author = {Rogerson, K},
   Title = {"National Information Security Policies in Comparative
             Perspective},
   Journal = {Journal of Information Technology and Politics},
   Year = {2012},
   Key = {fds299374}
}

@article{fds375518,
   Author = {Rogerson, KS and Milton, D},
   Title = {It's 2010, Do You Know Where Your Information Is? National
             Information Security Policies in Comparative
             Perspective},
   Year = {2011},
   Key = {fds375518}
}

@article{fds299371,
   Author = {Altman, M and Rogerson, K},
   Title = {Open research questions on information and technology in
             global and domestic politics - Beyond "E-"},
   Journal = {PS - Political Science and Politics},
   Volume = {41},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {835-837},
   Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
   Year = {2008},
   Month = {October},
   ISSN = {1049-0965},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1049096508081109},
   Abstract = {Accelerating technological change is one of the defining
             characteristics of this era. And the intersection of
             information, technology, and politics is a constantly
             changing arena. Technological change can provide the subject
             for political debate, such as in the controversy over
             electronic voting (see Tokaji 2005); affect the means by
             which politics is conducted, such as in the use of
             information technologies to provide government services and
             collect regulatory feedback (see Fountain 2001; West 2005;
             and Mayer-Schonberger and Lazer 2007); or challenge our
             understanding of political theories and concepts, such as
             the meaning of privacy and of the public sphere (see Etzioni
             2000 and Sunstein 2007 on the meaning of privacy and the
             compartmentalization of public speech, Bimber 2003 on the
             effect of information technologies on democracy, and Benkler
             2006 on the reinterpretation of the public sphere). Each of
             these perspectives is visible locally, regionally,
             nationally, and globally. © 2008 Copyright The American
             Political Science Association 2008.},
   Doi = {10.1017/S1049096508081109},
   Key = {fds299371}
}

@article{fds299375,
   Author = {Altman, M and Rogerson, K},
   Title = {"Open Research Questions on Information and Technology in
             Global and Domestic Policis - Beyond 'E-'"},
   Journal = {PS: Political Science and Politics},
   Volume = {XLI},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {835-837},
   Year = {2008},
   Month = {October},
   Key = {fds299375}
}

@article{fds46444,
   Author = {K.S. Rogerson and Guest},
   Title = {Technology and Politics},
   Journal = {Knowlege, Technology and Policy},
   Volume = {18},
   Number = {3},
   Year = {2005},
   Month = {Fall},
   Key = {fds46444}
}

@article{fds299380,
   Author = {Rogerson, KS},
   Title = {A Lot of Good Questions: A Few Good Answers: A look at
             Current Research on the Internet and Politics},
   Journal = {Political Communication},
   Volume = {22},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {237-244},
   Year = {2005},
   Key = {fds299380}
}

@article{fds299379,
   Author = {Rogerson, KS},
   Title = {Talking Past Each Other: IO Internet Policy in the
             Developing World},
   Journal = {International Politics},
   Volume = {41},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {176-195},
   Year = {2004},
   Month = {June},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800074},
   Abstract = {Much of the research on the information age and global
             transborder flows of information has centered on the
             relationships between states or regions of the world.
             International Organizations (IOs) are also playing a vital,
             if less visible, role in these processes. More specifically,
             the growth and expansion of the Internet is a volatile,
             dynamic subject that is finding its way onto IO agendas. But
             are these agenda items actually becoming programs that have
             practical and beneficial results? This article does not
             attempt to examine how IOs use the Internet. Instead, it
             provides an analysis of how IOs discuss issues relating to
             the Internet. What are the goals and purposes of
             international organizations when it comes to the Internet?
             Through an analysis of Internet issues and programs in a few
             IOs, this research concludes that it is increasingly
             difficult to articulate the technology-related goals of both
             the developed and the developing worlds, let alone implement
             them in a way that is satisfactory to the involved parties.
             © 2004 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.},
   Doi = {10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800074},
   Key = {fds299379}
}

@article{fds305687,
   Author = {Rogerson, K},
   Title = {Talking past each other: International organization internet
             policy in the developing world},
   Journal = {International Politics},
   Volume = {41},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {176-195},
   Publisher = {Springer Nature},
   Year = {2004},
   Month = {June},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800074},
   Abstract = {Much of the research on the information age and global
             transborder flows of information has centered on the
             relationships between states or regions of the world.
             International Organizations (IOs) are also playing a vital,
             if less visible, role in these processes. More specifically,
             the growth and expansion of the Internet is a volatile,
             dynamic subject that is finding its way onto IO agendas. But
             are these agenda items actually becoming programs that have
             practical and beneficial results? This article does not
             attempt to examine how IOs use the Internet. Instead, it
             provides an analysis of how IOs discuss issues relating to
             the Internet. What are the goals and purposes of
             international organizations when it comes to the Internet?
             Through an analysis of Internet issues and programs in a few
             IOs, this research concludes that it is increasingly
             difficult to articulate the technology-related goals of both
             the developed and the developing worlds, let alone implement
             them in a way that is satisfactory to the involved parties.
             © 2004 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.},
   Doi = {10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800074},
   Key = {fds305687}
}

@article{fds299381,
   Author = {Rogerson, KS},
   Title = {Addressing the Negative Consequences of the Information Age:
             Lessons from Karl Polanyi and the Industrial
             Revolution},
   Journal = {Information, Communication and Society},
   Volume = {6},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {104-123},
   Year = {2003},
   Key = {fds299381}
}

@article{fds305686,
   Author = {Strauss, J and Rogerson, KS},
   Title = {Policies for online privacy in the United States and the
             European Union},
   Journal = {Telematics and Informatics},
   Volume = {19},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {173-192},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {2002},
   Month = {May},
   ISSN = {0736-5853},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0736-5853(01)00012-0},
   Abstract = {This article examines how public and private sector
             institutions in the United States and the European Union
             have reacted to public demand for increased and improved
             online privacy protection. We argue that self-regulatory
             attempts do not adequately protect privacy online and that
             legislative intervention, as is happening in the European
             Union, is not only a good idea for the United States, but
             may be necessary to secure future online exchange of
             personal information. © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All
             rights reserved.},
   Doi = {10.1016/S0736-5853(01)00012-0},
   Key = {fds305686}
}

@article{fds299378,
   Author = {Strauss, KSRWJ},
   Title = {Policies for Online Privacy in the United States and the
             European Union},
   Journal = {Telematics and Informatics},
   Volume = {19},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {175-209},
   Year = {2002},
   Month = {April},
   ISSN = {0736-5853},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0736-5853(01)00012-0},
   Abstract = {This article examines how public and private sector
             institutions in the United States and the European Union
             have reacted to public demand for increased and improved
             online privacy protection. We argue that self-regulatory
             attempts do not adequately protect privacy online and that
             legislative intervention, as is happening in the European
             Union, is not only a good idea for the United States, but
             may be necessary to secure future online exchange of
             personal information. © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All
             rights reserved.},
   Doi = {10.1016/S0736-5853(01)00012-0},
   Key = {fds299378}
}

@article{fds299377,
   Author = {Rogerson, KS},
   Title = {Information Interdependence: Keohane and Nye's Complex
             Interdependence in the Information Age},
   Journal = {Information Communication and Society},
   Volume = {3},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {415-436},
   Year = {2000},
   Key = {fds299377}
}

@article{fds299376,
   Author = {Rogerson, KS and Thomas, GD},
   Title = {Internet Regulation Process Model: The Effect of Societies,
             Communities, and Governments},
   Journal = {Political Communication},
   Volume = {15},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {427-444},
   Publisher = {Informa UK Limited},
   Year = {1998},
   Month = {September},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/105846098198821},
   Abstract = {The Internet is often seen as borderless and unmanageable
             and, therefore, not fully understandable. Starting from the
             assumption that it can be understood, we begin an attempt to
             organize the Internet by characterizing it as a behavior
             space in which groups categorized as societies, communities,
             and governments interact. We emphasize the utility of
             organizing the Internet and focus specifically on attempts
             by societies, communities, and governments to regulate the
             flow of information. We posit an Internet regulation process
             model that, we believe, explains most of the efforts to
             regulate the Internet. In addition, we provide some insight
             into the relationships between and within the various groups
             involved. Our conclusions center on the observation that
             political power (especially Western political power) has
             been a defining factor in the regulation of the Internet as
             governments have played a prominent role in regulatory
             action. © 1998 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.},
   Doi = {10.1080/105846098198821},
   Key = {fds299376}
}

@article{fds46453,
   Author = {K.S. Rogerson},
   Title = {The Role of the Media in Transitions from Authoritarian
             Political Regimes},
   Journal = {East European Quarterly},
   Series = {Issue 37},
   Number = {3},
   Year = {1997},
   Month = {September},
   Key = {fds46453}
}

@article{fds299369,
   Author = {Rogerson, K},
   Title = {The role of the media in transitions from authoritarian
             political systems: Russia and Poland since the fall of
             communism},
   Journal = {East European Quarterly},
   Volume = {31},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {329-353},
   Year = {1997},
   Month = {September},
   ISSN = {0012-8449},
   Key = {fds299369}
}


%% Chapters in Books   
@misc{fds357893,
   Author = {Rogerson, K and Sherman, J},
   Title = {AI in Public Education: Humble Beginnings and Revolutionary
             Potential},
   Pages = {63-83},
   Booktitle = {International Political Economy Series},
   Year = {2021},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74420-5_4},
   Abstract = {Artificial intelligence (AI) is discussed quite often in the
             context of workplace automation, self-driving cars, or
             lethal autonomous weapons. Less frequent in discussions of
             artificial intelligence—both in how AI systems are
             presently in use, and how they may be deployed in the
             future—is mention of AI’s impact in the civilian public
             sphere. This is particularly true with respect to how AI is
             impacting, and will impact, public education systems around
             the world. In this chapter, we examine current uses of AI in
             public education in the United States, China, and India. We
             discuss government plans to expand those uses in the future.
             The Indian government is ahead of those in both China and
             the United States in articulating a vision for how AI can be
             used to reshape public education for the better. And we
             finally analyze these uses in the context of such
             considerations as school demographics, fairness, civil
             liberties and differing cultural views of privacy, and
             broader AI surveillance.},
   Doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-74420-5_4},
   Key = {fds357893}
}

@misc{fds368947,
   Author = {Rogerson, KS and Milton, D},
   Title = {Internet diffusion and the digital divide The role of
             policy-making and political institutions},
   Pages = {415-423},
   Booktitle = {Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics},
   Publisher = {Routledge},
   Editor = {Andrew Chadwick and Philip N. Howard},
   Year = {2008},
   Month = {January},
   ISBN = {9780203962541},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203962541-34},
   Abstract = {As governments, businesses, and society tackle the digital
             divide, understanding why the divide persists and whether it
             is widening or is narrowing is crucial. This chapter
             analyzes attempts to make policy and implement programs
             relating to the internet and the diffusion of technology in
             four constitutionally democratic countries. The aim is to
             generate hypotheses regarding the potential role of
             institutions in this process. Each case-Brazil, Estonia,
             Singapore, and the United States-is a recognized leader in
             technological diffusion in its region. While the literature
             on the digital divide emphasizes the very real impact of
             economic and societal forces, political institutions and
             policy processes are also important drivers of technology
             diffusion.},
   Doi = {10.4324/9780203962541-34},
   Key = {fds368947}
}

@misc{fds345373,
   Author = {Rogerson, KS},
   Title = {Internet as Political Advocacy Forum},
   Volume = {2},
   Pages = {503-508},
   Booktitle = {Encyclopedia of International Media and Communications},
   Year = {2003},
   Month = {January},
   ISBN = {9780123876706},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-387670-2/00141-2},
   Abstract = {Political advocacy is the mobilization of ideas and people
             with the goal of influencing the thinking of policymakers to
             either (1) promote a specific point of view or (2) enact
             policy in the form of laws or programs that benefit the
             ideas or people. Political advocacy happens in many places
             and on many levels, though the concept is most often
             associated with democratic societies. Among the assumptions
             of these types of pluralistic societies are that there are
             many voices that want to be heard in the political process
             and that there should be (theoretically) as many avenues or
             forums as possible for those voices to be
             heard.},
   Doi = {10.1016/B0-12-387670-2/00141-2},
   Key = {fds345373}
}

@misc{fds345929,
   Author = {Rogerson, KS},
   Title = {Karl polanyi},
   Pages = {135-153},
   Booktitle = {Key Thinkers for the Information Society},
   Year = {2003},
   Month = {January},
   ISBN = {9780415296731},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203217818-13},
   Abstract = {Karl Polanyi (1886-1964) was an anomaly among economists. He
             considered himself an economic anthropologist. What may seem
             like an oxymoron in some circles seemed perfectly logical to
             him. Traditionally, economists in general have explained the
             world in theory (other things being equal) and thus in
             isolation from social factors. In fact, the advent of
             international political economy and those who followed it
             was seen as slightly revolutionary. Not many scholars do
             work in, for example, sociological economics, philosophical
             economics or cultural economics, though research in these
             areas has been extant for some time.},
   Doi = {10.4324/9780203217818-13},
   Key = {fds345929}
}

@misc{fds46448,
   Author = {K.S. Rogerson},
   Title = {The Internet as Political Advocacy Forum},
   Journal = {Encyclopedia of International Media and Communications},
   Volume = {2},
   Year = {2003},
   Key = {fds46448}
}

@misc{fds46449,
   Author = {K.S. Rogerson},
   Title = {The Negative Consequences of the Information Age: Karl
             Polanyi and the 'New' New Transformation},
   Booktitle = {Great Thinkers and the Information Revolution},
   Editor = {Christopher May},
   Year = {2002},
   Key = {fds46449}
}


%% Edited Volumes   
@misc{fds166577,
   Author = {K. Rogerson},
   Title = {International Communication in Social Movements and Interest
             Groups},
   Volume = {VI},
   Pages = {3970-3981},
   Booktitle = {The International Studies Encyclopedia},
   Editor = {Robert A. Denemark},
   Year = {2010},
   ISBN = {9781405152389},
   Key = {fds166577}
}


%% Book Reviews   
@article{fds184218,
   Author = {K. Rogerson},
   Title = {Negotiation and the Global Information Economy},
   Journal = {Review of Policy Research},
   Volume = {27},
   Number = {5},
   Pages = {657-658},
   Year = {2010},
   Month = {September},
   Key = {fds184218}
}