Research Portfolio Post #1: Research Interests

The Internet of Things is the popularized theory that as technology progresses, the internet will become even more pervasive as a form of communication between, quite frankly, everything. This theory is already becoming actualized with the introduction of smart home technology, which connects every aspect of a person’s domestic life, and the utilization of cloud databanks to store personal information.

American University Professor Laura DeNardis notes as much, claiming that the “Internet of Things represents a new policy frontier for global technological policy makers as well as a significant risk for global consumers.”[1]The risk comes in the form of privacy breaches and cyberterrorism which potential for catastrophic damage has scaled exponentially in concert with the growth of the internet.

To that end, I will be focusing my research toward global policy frameworks which will help limit the potential for disaster via cyber-attacks. This work is akin to non-proliferation treaties (NPT) such as the Nuclear NPT of 1970 and the chemical weapons convention of 1997 which continued the ban on chemical weapon in warfare. Because of the topic, there are a plethora of potential rabbit holes in which my research could take me. However, with the insights of my academic mentor, Dr Josh Rovner, I am confident we will be able to whittle this topic down to a manageable size.

Similarly, I had the opportunity to work with American University Professor Nanette Levinson who was able to direct my project towards the International Studies theory of global governance. Dr Levinson is a proponent of the theory that international change can only be achieved through a multistakeholder approach which shows clear benefits for all parties involved[2]. I plan to use the models provided by Dr Levinson to establish the potential actors involved in this project, as well as possible paths towards legislation.

[1]DeNardis, Laura and Mark Raymond. “The Internet of Things as a Global Policy Frontier.” University of California, Davis Law Review 475. (2017). DOI: https://lawreview.law. ucdavis.edu/issues/51/2/Symposium/51-2_DeNardis_Raymond.pdf

[2]Levinson, Nanette and Meryem Marzouki. “International Organizations and Global Internet Governance: Interorganizational Architecture.” Information Technology and Global Governance. (2016). doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137483591_3.

3 thoughts on “Research Portfolio Post #1: Research Interests

  1. Paroma Mehta says:

    Tristan, this seems like such an interesting topic that could go in many fascinating directions! While I don’t know very much about this issue, I wonder if it might be of value to potentially look at the viability of a cyber-security framework due to the fact that technology is changing and advancing every day (re: Internet of Things). Additionally, I’m not sure how pertinent this would be to your work but I can’t help but think about how differences in technological advancements across countries could lead to further difficulties in coming up with a generalised framework on an international scale? Just some points to consider. I look forward to reading more of your research and learning more!

  2. Tristan,

    I am intrigued by your topic on the Internet of Things Theory and research on creating policy frameworks. I think the internet and technology will be intrinsically interwoven as a society become more technologically advanced but I am most interested in the route you will take with your policies. As you know, internet-related policies have stirred many controversies; most recently, in 2018 on Net Neutrality and Internet accessibility caused debate amongst online forums such as Reddit. [1] The Proposal to enact large policies on something that prides itself in free speech such as the Internet could likely cause similar upset. In your paper would you reference these hesitations or push back and would you even reference lobbyists that would be both for and against such policies. Who would gain and who would lose from Internet Related policies, relating to how you compared these policies to Nuclear NPT, who then was against them and who was for them and what the public’s general response? You reference the use of stakeholders, would you decide to use a specific actor or create a scenario for which stakeholders will assume. How does public response influence policy and how would your policy address this? Would there be limitations and if we know we are being surveyed what are the alternatives to preventing cyber-attacks but also maintaining trust. Would the prevention of cyber-attacks be used as a ploy to create greater surveillance and at cost are Americans or anyone willing to give for their own security? These would be an interesting ethical debate to consider that would go beyond policymaking into something like the human psyche as it relates to and interacts with technology.
    I look forward to reading more of your topic and see how your project develops!

  3. Tristan — overall you seem to be off to a good start here with some good connections to scholarly literature (and some excellent questions/suggestions from your peers to ponder). As you note, your thoughts so far are quite general. That is fine, but as you continue your reading and background research I would read with a careful eye to uncovering more specific *explanatory* puzzles (as discussed by Booth et al. as well as Abbott) that could provide a more specific empirical foundation for the conceptual problems that you highlight. Keep thinking about questions like: What is the concrete, yet puzzling, state of affairs or outcome or trend that you want to explain? What specifically makes it puzzling? What scholars have highlighted that puzzle as important? I look forward to discussing your research ideas with you and seeing how the research develops.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *