Aucamp, I.C., Woodborne, S., Perold, J.J., Bron, A., and Aucamp, S.M. (2011). Looking beyond impact assessment to social sustainability. In: Vanclay, F., and Esteves, A.M. (eds.) New Directions in Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological Assumptions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 38-58.
Bamberger, K.A., and Mulligan, D.K. (2008). Privacy decision making in administrative agencies. University of Chicago Law Review 75/1: 75-107.
Bechmann, G. (1993). Technology Assessment: Democratic function of technology-assessment in technology policy decision-making. Science and Public Policy 20/1: 11-16.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. New Delhi: Sage.
Becker, H., and Vanclay, F. (eds) (2003). The International Handbook of Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological Advances. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Becker, H.A. (2001). Social impact assessment. European Journal of Operational Research 128: 311-321.
Becker, Henk A., and Frank Vanclay, The International Handbook of Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological Advances, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2003.
Bennett, C.J. (2007). Appendix D: Jurisdictional Report for United States of America. Privacy Impact Assessments: International Study of their Application and Effects. Wilmslow, UK: Information commissioner’s Office.
Biegelbauer, P., and Loeber, A. (2010). The Challenge of Citizen Participation to Democracy. Sociological Series 94, Institute of Advanced Studies, Vienna. Available: http://www.academia.edu/1871712/Coedited_with_Anne_Loeber_The_Challenge_of_Citizen_Participation_to_Democracy.
Bishop, P., and Davis, G. (2002). Mapping public participation in policy choices. Australian Journal of Public Administration 61/1: 14-29.
Bishop, Patrick, and Glyn Davis, “Mapping public participation in policy choices”, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol.61, No.1, 2002, pp. 14-29.
Braun-Thürmann, Holger, Innovation, Transcript, Bielefield, 2005.
Bruner, J., The Process of Education. The President and Fellows of Harvard College, Cambridge, MA, 1960.
Burde, R., and Vanclay, F. (1995). Social impact assessment. In: Vanclay, F., and Bronstein, D. (eds). Environmental and Social Impact Assessment. Chister: Wiley. 31-65.
Buzan, Barry, and Lene Hansen, The Evolution of International Security Studies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, 2009.
Buzan, Barry, Ole Weaver and Jaap de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis, Lynne Rienner, London, 1998.
Chilton, P., Security Metaphors: Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House, Peter Lang, New York, 1996.
Chilvers, J. (2013). Reflexive engagement? Actors, learning, and reflexivity in public dialogue on science and technology. Science Communication 35/3: 283-310.
Clarke, R. (2009). Privacy impact assessment: Its origins and development. Computer Law & Security Review 25/2: 123-135.
Clarke, R. (2011). An evaluation of privacy impact assessment guidance documents. International Data Privacy Law 1/2: 111-120.
Collins, H., and Evans, R. (2007). Rethinking Expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Collins, H.M., and Evans, R. (2002). The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience. Social Studies of Science 32/2: 235-296.
Cooke, B., and Kothari, U. (2001) (eds.). Participation: The New Tyranny? New York: Zed Books.
De Hert, P. (2012). A Human Rights Perspective on Privacy and Data Protection Impact Assessments. In: Wright D., De Hert P. (eds). Privacy Impact Assessment. Dordrecht: Springer.
Dempsey, J.X. (2004). Statement before the [U.S.] House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on commercial and Administrative Law. Privacy in the Hands of the Government: The Privacy Officer for the Department of Homeland Security (10 February).
Duncombe, R. (2011). Researching impact of mobile phones for development: concepts, methods and lessons for practice. Information Technology and Development 17/4: 268-288.
Esteves, A.M., Franks, D., and Vanclay, F. (2012). Social impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30/1: 34-42.
European Commission (2009). Recommendation on the implementation of privacy and data protection principles in applications supported by radio-frequency identification. C (2009) 3200 final, Brussels, 12 May. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32009H0387:EN:HTML (accessed 29 July 2013).
European Commission (2011). Privacy and Data Protection Impact Assessment Framework for RFID Applications. Available at: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/enet/documents/rfid-pia-framework-final.pdf (accessed 29 July 2013).
European Commission, “Key procedural steps for the Commission/smart-regulation/impact”, 20 December 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/ia_key/ia_key_en.htm
European Commission, “Secure Societies – protecting freedom and security of Europe and its citizens”. http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/secure-societies-%E2%80%93-protecting-freedom-and-security-europe-and-its-citizens
European Commission, “Smart Regulation”, 13 January 2014. http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/index_en.htm
European Parliament, Council and Commission, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2010/C 83/02, OJ, Brussels, 30.3.2010. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0389:0403:en:PDF
European Security Research Advisory Board, Meeting the challenge: The European Security Research Agenda, 2006. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/security/files/esrab_report_en.pdf
European Union (2000). Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf (accessed 29 July 2013).
Felt, U. and Wynne, B. (2007). Taking European knowledge society seriously. Brussels: European Commission.
Franks, D., Fidler C., Brereton, D., Vanclay, F., and Clark, P. (2009). Leading Practice Strategies for Addressing the Social Impacts of Resource Developments. Briefing paper for the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Queensland Government, St Lucia: Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland.
Freudenburg, W.R. (1986). Social Impact Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 12: 451-478.
Garud, R. and Ahlstrom, D. (1997). Technology assessment: a socio-cognitive perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 14: 25-48.
Gaskell, G., and Gottweis, H. (2011). Biobanks need publicity. Nature 471/7337: 159-160.
Genus, A. (2006). Rethinking constructive technology assessment as democratic, reflective, discourse. Technology Forecasting and Social Change 73: 13-26.
Genus, Audley, “Rethinking constructive technology assessment as democratic, reflective discourse”, Technology Forecasting and Social Change, No. 73, No. 1, 2006, pp. 13-26. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625/73/1
Green, K., Hull, R., Mcmeekin, A., and Walsh, V. (1999). The construction of the techno-economic: networks vs. paradigms. Research Policy 28/7: 777-792.
Guba, E.G., and Lincoln Y.S. (1981). Effective evaluation. Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco: Jossey-bass Publications.
Guillemin, Marilys, and Lynn Gillam, “Ethics, Reflexivity and “ethically Important” moments in research”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2004, pp. 261-280.
Harvey, B. (2011). Foreword: SIA from a resource developer’s perspective. In: Vanclay, F., and Esteves, A.M. (eds.) New Directions in Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological Assumptions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. xxvii-xxxiii.
Heeks, R.B. & Molla, A. (2009). Impact assessment of ICT-for-development projects: A compendium of approaches (Development Informatics Working paper No.36). University of Manchester. Available at: http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/idpm/research/publications/wp/di/documents/di_wp36.pdf [accessed 10 October 2013].
Horowitz, I.L. (1971) (ed). The Use and Abuse of Social Science. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.
Howitt, R. (2011). Theoretical foundations. In: Vanclay, F., and Esteves, A.M. (eds.) New Directions in Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological Assumptions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 78-95. In: Vanclay, F., and Esteves, A.M. (eds.) New Directions in Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological Assumptions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 117-137.
Ilten, C., Guagnin, D., Hempel, L. (2011). How can privacy accountability become part of business process? Privacy Laws and Business International 112: 28-30.
Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) (n.d.) Privacy impact assessment. http://www.ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/topic_guides/privacy_impact_assessment.
Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen Science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London: Routledge.
Kemp, D. (2011). Understanding the organizational context. In: Vanclay, F., and Esteves, A.M. (eds.) New Directions in Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological Assumptions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 20-37.
Kemp, Deanna, “Understanding the Organizational Context”, in Frank Vanclay and Ana Maria Esteves, (eds.), New Directions in Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological Advances, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2011, p. 30.
Kinkade, S., & Verclas, K. (2008). Wireless technology for social change: Trends in mobile use by NGOs, Vodafone Group Foundation, Access to Communication Public Series. Available at: http://www.dochas.ie/Shared/Files/4/Trends_in_mobile_use_by_NGOs.pdf [accessed 10 October 2013].
Lahiri-Dutt, K., and Ahmad, N. (20011). Considering Gender in Social Impact Assessments. In: Vanclay, F., and Esteves, A.M. (eds.) New Directions in Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological Assumptions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 117-137.
Lippmann, W. (2011 . The phantom public. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Lynch, M. (2008). Know-How. Book review of Rethinking Expertise (Harry Collins and Robert Evans). American Scientist 96: 337-338.
Lyon, D. (2003). Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy, risk and digital discrimination. London: Routledge.
Marx, G.T. (1998). An ethics for the New Surveillance. The Information Society 14/3: 171-185.
Mason, Jennifer, Qualitative Researching, Sage, London, 1996.
McCarthy, Sabhbh, Report of the Societal Impact Expert Working Group: EC DG ENTR Report, February 2012.
McPherson, E. C. (1995). Ethical implications of the human genome diversity project. NursingConnections 8/1: 36-43.
Müth, M. (2003). Verkehrspolitik in Metropolen Südostasiens (The politics of traffic in South East Asian Metropolis areas). Hamburg: Abera (in German).
Müth, Matthias, Verkherspolitik in Metropolen Südostasiens (the politics of traffic in South East Asian Metropolis areas), Abera, Hamburg, 2003.
Neocleous, Mark, “Security, Liberty and the Myth of Balance: Towards a critique of security politics”, Contemporary Political Theory, Vol.6, Issue 2, May 2007, pp. 131-149. http://www.palgrave-journals.com/cpt/journal/v6/n2/index.html
Nicholls, J., Lawlor, E., Neitzert, E., and Goodspeed, T. (2009). A Guide to Social Return on Investment. London: Office of the Third Sector. Cabinet Office.
Nish, S., and Bice, S. (2011). Community-based agreement making with land-connected peoples. In: Vanclay, F., and Esteves, A.M. (eds.) New Directions in Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological Assumptions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 59-77.
Nissenbaum, Helen , Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life, Stanford Law Books, Stanford, 2009.
Norman Lee and Colin Kirkpatrick, “Evidence-based policy making in Europe: an evaluation of European Commission integrated impact assessments”, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2006, pp. 23-33.
O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2010). Public participation and environmental impact assessment: Purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30: 19-27.
O’Faircheallaigh, Ciaran, “Public participation and environmental impact assessment: Purposes, implications and lessons for public policy making”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 30, Issue 1, January 2010, pp. 19-27.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Stakeholder Involvement Techniques, Paris, 2004. http://www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/reports/2004/nea5418-stakeholder.pdf
Peterman, W. (2004). Advocacy vs. collaboration: compairing inclusionary community planning models. Community Development Journal 39/3: 266-276.
Peterman, William, “Advocacy vs. collaboration: comparing inclusionary community planning models”, Community Development Journal, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2004, pp. 266-276.
Prainsack, B. Understanding participation: The ‘citizen science’ of genetics. In: Prainsack, B., Schicktanz, S., and Werner-Felmayer, G. (eds). Genetics as Social Practice. Farnham: Ashgate (in press).
Rappert, B. (2012). How to look Good in a war. Justifying and Challenging State Violence. London: PlutoPress.
Reardon, J. (2004). Race to the finish: Identity and Governance in an age of Genomics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rip, A. (2001a). Assessing the impact of innovation: new developments in technology assessment. OECD Proceedings: Social Sciences and Innovation. Paris: OECD. 197-213.
Rip, A. (2001b). Contributions from Social Studies of Science and Constructive Technology Assessment. In: Stirling, A. (ed). On Science and Precaution in the Management of Technological Risk. Vol II: Case Studies. Sevilla: Institute for Prospective Technology Studies, EC JRC. 94-122.
Rip, A. van Lente, H. (2013). Bridging the gap between innovation and ELSA: The TA program in the Dutch Nano-R&D Program Nano Ned. Nanoethics 7: 7-16.
Rip, A., and Schot, J.W. (2002). Idenifying loci for influencing the dynamics of technological development. In: Sørensen, K.H., and Williams, R. (eds). Shaping technology, guiding policy: Concepts, spcaces and tools. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 155-172.
Rip, A., Misa, T.J., Schot, J. (eds). (1995). Managing technology in society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. London: Pinter.
Rip, Arie, and Harro van Lente,“Bridging the gap between innovation and ELSA: The TA program in the Dutch Nano-R&D Program Nano Ned”, Nanoethics, Vol. 7, Issue 1, April 2013, pp. 7-16. http://link.springer.com/journal/11569/7/1/page/1
Rip, Arie, and Johan Schot, “Identifying Loci for the influencing the dynamics of technology development”, in Knut H. Sorensen and Robin Williams (eds.), Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy: Concepts, Spaces and Tools, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2002, pp. 155-172.
Rip, Arie, and Johan Schot, “The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 54, Nos. 2-3, 1997, pp. 251-268.
Rotenberg, M. (2006). The Sui Generis Privacy Agency: How the United States Institionalized Privacy Oversight After 9/11. (September 28, 2006). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=933690 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.933690.
Rowe, G., and Frewer, L.J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values 25/1: 3-29.
Schedler, P., and Glastra, F. (2001). Communicating policy in late modern society: on the boundaries of interactive policy making. Policy & Politics 29/3: 337-349.
Schön, D.A. (1991). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Aldershot: Arena.
Schot, J. (2001). Towards new forms of participatory technology development. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 13/1: 39-52.
Schot, J. and Geels, F.W. (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 20/5: 537-554.
Schot, J., and Rip, A. (1996). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54/2-3: 251-268.
Schot, Johan, and Frank W. Geels, “Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: Theory, findings, research agenda and policy”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 20, No. 5, 2008. pp. 537-554.
Scottish Government (n.d.) eCare Data Transfer Guidance Note. Available at: www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/1141/0110087.doc.
Smits, R., and Leyten, J. (1991). Technology Assessment: waakhond of speurhond? Naar een integral technologiebeleid (Technology Assessment: guard dog or sniffer dog? Towards an integrated administration of technology). Zeist: Kerckbosch Bv (in Dutch).
Sørenson, K.H., Williams, R. (eds.) (2002). Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy: Concepts, Spaces, Tools. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Stoddart, Jennifer, “Auditing Privacy Impact Assessments: The Canadian Experience”, in David Wright and Paul De Hert (eds.), Privacy Impact Assessment, Springer, Dordrecht, 2013.
Surveillance Studies Network (2006). A report on the surveillance society. For the Information Commissioner by the Surveillance Studies Network. Available at: http://www.ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/library/Data_Protection/Practical_application/SURVEILLANCE_SOCIETY_FULL_REPORT_2006.PDF (accessed 2 August 2013).
Taylor, M. (2012). Genetic data and the law: A critical perspective on privacy protection. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Timmermans, S., and Berg, M. (2003). The practice of medical technology. Sociology of Health and Illness 25: 97-114.
United Nations, Follow-up to General Assembly resolution 64/291 on human security – Report of the Secretary-General, 5 April 2012. https://docs.unocha.org/sites/dms/HSU/Publications%20and%20Products/Rep orts%20of%20the%20Secretary%20General/A-66-763%20English.pdf
Van de Ven, Andrew, Douglas Polley, Raghu Garud, Sankaran Venkataraman, The Innovation Journey, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Vanclay, F. (2003). International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 21/5: 5-11.
Vanclay, F. (2006). Principles for social impact assessment: a critical comparison between the international and US documents. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26/1: 3-14.
Vanclay, F., and Esteves, A.M. (2011). Current issues and trends in social impact assessment. In: Vanclay, F., and Esteves, A.M. (eds.) New Directions in Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological Assumptions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 3-19.
Vanclay, F., and Esteves, A.M. (eds.) (2011). New Directions in Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological Assumptions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Vanclay, Frank, “International Principles for Social Impact Assessment ”, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2003, pp. 5-12.
Vanclay, Frank, “Social Impact Assessment: International Principles”, IAIA, Special publication series No.2, May 2003. http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/sp2.pdf
Vanclay, Frank, and Ana M. Esteves (eds.), New Directions in Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological Assumptions, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2011.
Vanclay, Frank,“International Principles for Social Impact Assessment: their evolution”, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal , Vol. 21, No. 1, 2003a, pp. 3-4.
Wadhwa, K. (2012). Privacy impact assessment reports: a report card. info 14/3: 35-47.
Wadhwa, K., and Wright, D. (2013). Introducing a privacy impact assessment policy in the EU member states. International Data Privacy Law 3/1: 13-28.
Wang, V. L. (1975). Motivating the masses for family planning in the people’s republic of china. Bulletin of the Pan American Health Organization 9/2: 95-111.
Williams, R. (1983). Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society (revised ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Williams, R., Edge, D. (1996). The social shaping of technology. Research Policy 25/6: 865-899.
Wood, C., and Leighton, D. (2010). Measuring Social Value: The Gap between Policy and Practice. London: Demos.
Wright, D. (2011). Should privacy impact assessments be mandatory? Communications of the [Association of Computer Machinery] ACM 54/8: 121-131.
Wright, D., and de Hert, P. (2012). Introduction to Privacy Impact Assessment. In: Wright, D., and de Hert, P. (eds). Privacy Impact Assessment, Springer, Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York, 2012, pp. 3-33.
Wright, D., and Raab, C.D. (2012). Constructing a surveillance impact assessment. Computer Law & Security Review 28: 613-626.
Wright, D., and Wadhwa, K. (2012). A step-by-step guide to privacy impact assessment. Empirical research on contextual factors affecting the introduction of PIA frameworks in EU Member States, Poland (April). Available at: http://www.piafproject.eu/ref/A_step-by-step_guide.pdf (last accessed 6 September 2013).
Wright, D., Finn, R., and Rodrigues R. (2013). A comparative analysis of Privacy Impact Assessment in six countries. Journal of Contemporary European Research 9/1: 160-180.
Wright, D., Gellert, R., Bellanova, R., Gutwirth, S., Langheinrich, M., Friedewald, M., Hallinan, D., Venier, S., and Mordini, E. (2013). Privacy Impact Assessment and Smart Surveillance: A State of the Art Report. SAPIENT Deliverable 3.1, 17 May 2013.
Wright, D., Gellert, R., Gutwirth, S., and Friedewald, M. (2011). Minimizing technology risks with PIAs, precaution and participation. IEEE Technology & Society 30/4: 47-54.
Wright, David and Paul de Hert, “Introduction to Privacy Impact Assessment”, in David Wright and Paul de Hert (eds.), Privacy Impact Assessment, Springer, Dordrecht, 2012, pp. 3-33.
Wright, David, “The state of the art in privacy impact assessment”, Computer Law & Security Review, Vol. 28, No. 1, Feb. 2012, pp. 54-61. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02673649.
Wright, David, and Charles Raab, “Constructing a surveillance impact assessment”, Computer Law & Security Review, Vol. 28, No. 6, Dec 2012, pp. 613-626.
Wright, David, and Kush Wadhwa, “A step-by-step guide to privacy impact assessment”, presentation paper for the second PIAF Workshop, Sopot, Poland, 24 April 2012. http://www.piafproject.eu/ref/A_step-by-step_guide_to_privacy_impact_assessment-19Apr2012.pdf
Wright, David, Raphael Gellert, Rocco Bellanova, Serge Gutwirth, Marc Langhenrich, Michael Freidewald, Dara Hallinan, Silvia Venier and Emilio Mordini,”Privacy Impact Assessment and Smart Surveillance: A State of the Art Report, Deliverable 3.1, SAPIENT Project, May 2013.
Wynne, B. (2003). Seasick on the Third Wave? Subverting the Hegemony of Propositionalism. Response to Collins & Evans (2002). Social Studies of Science 33/3: 401-417.
Wynne, B. (2007). Dazzled by the mirage of influence? STS-SSK in multivalent registers of relevance. Science, Technology & Human Values 32: 491-503.