Open Calls for Theses

Digital sovereignty has emerged as a complex/multifaceted and contested concept in the literature, reflecting varied and sometimes conflicting notions of how states and actors engage with digital technologies and infrastructures. Scholars and policymakers alike are grappling with the balance between autonomy, control, and global cooperation in an inherently interconnected digital environment. The concept of sovereignty has evolved from the Westphalian model of absolute territorial authority to a dynamic and multifaceted principle shaped by globalization, digitalization, and international cooperation. The Westphalian model, established in 1648, marks the traditional starting point for understanding sovereignty, but the concept has since undergone transformations, responding to the complexities of globalization, technological advancement, and changing notions of authority and legitimacy. The digital age presents new challenges to sovereignty, as the internet and global digital networks transcend physical borders, making control over information flows difficult. 

 

• Review the literature on digital sovereignty and derive a relevant research question. You can augment your literature review by conducting a case study or collecting qualitative or quantitative data to “test” your hypothesis.

Literature to start off with

Bartelson, J. (2016). Sovereignty. In Critical imaginations in international relations (pp. 182-194). Routledge.

Chander, A., & Sun, H. (Eds.). (2023). Data Sovereignty: From the Digital Silk Road to the Return of the State. Oxford University Press.

Roberts, H., Cowls, J., Casolari, F., Morley, J., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2021). Safeguarding European values with digital sovereignty: an analysis of statements and policies. Internet Policy Review, Forthcoming.

Pohle, J., & Thiel, T. (2020). Digital sovereignty. Internet Policy Review, 9(4).https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.4.1532 

→ If you are interested, please contact: Sofie Schönborn

Prerequisite: Demonstrated knowledge of cloud computing through lectures, seminars, work experience, or similar proof.
 

Cloud computing has become a central element in the transformation of IT operating models, introducing new paradigms for how organizations manage and deploy technological resources. Since the emergence of cloud computing, scholars have discussed legal and regulatory challenges, particularly around data protection, privacy, and compliance with local laws over the past decade. Concerns about digital sovereignty have become increasingly prominent in discussions of cloud computing adoption, which include implications for digital services and data hosting. A range of initiatives and offerings have emerged to address these increasing calls for digital sovereignty, including cloud offerings like Delos Cloud and Bleu, ‘sovereign cloud’ offerings by international players, and initiatives like the European Gaia-X. While an increasing body of literature discusses digital sovereignty, its implications in the context of cloud technology and specific offerings are rarely discussed. There is yet a gap in the literature to assess, how digital sovereignty looks like in the cloud market, which offerings have emerged, and which actors are relevant in this context.

• Review the relevant literature and examples of sovereign cloud offerings. Formulate a relevant research question and, possibly, hypothesis. You can augment your literature review by conducting a case study or collecting qualitative or quantitative data to test your hypothesis.

Literature to start off with

Chander, A., & Sun, H. (Eds.). (2023). Data Sovereignty: From the Digital Silk Road to the Return of the State. Oxford University Press.

Pohle, J., & Thiel, T. (2020). Digital sovereignty. Internet Policy Review, 9(4).https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.4.1532 

BMWK (n.a.). The Gaia-X Ecosystem. Online.

Google (n.a.). Google Sovereign Cloud. Online.

Delos Cloud (n.a.). Gemeinsam souverän. Die Cloud für den öffentlichen Dienst. Online.

Rath, M., Keller, L., & Spies, A. (2023). Sovereign Clouds—An overview of the current privacy challenges associated with the use of US cloud services, and how sovereign clouds can address these challenges. Computer Law Review International, 24(3), 78-84.

→ If you are interested, please contact: Sofie Schönborn

Prerequisite: Demonstrated knowledge of cloud computing through lectures, seminars, work experience, or similar proof.

Governments worldwide are increasingly turning to cloud computing as a cornerstone of their digital transformation and e-government strategies. Cloud is expected to offer a scalable, flexible, and cost-effective solution for public sector organizations seeking to enhance service delivery, improve operational efficiency, and foster innovation. However, governments must navigate a variety of demands, including data security, privacy, regulatory compliance, and concerns over “sovereignty”, all while managing organizational change and ensuring that investments yield tangible benefits. The diversity of these challenges is further compounded by variations in economic development, political contexts, and technological readiness across different countries. Literature on government cloud adoption has for the most part focused on organizational-level adoption studies and case studies, with a lack of larger comparative studies or meta-studies that examine how different nations approach this multifaceted issue. Prior research tends to focus on specific aspects such as technical implementation, security concerns, or the impact of cloud computing on organizational performance. However, a holistic understanding of the strategies employed by governments across various regions and income levels remains limited. 

• Conduct a literature review on government cloud use and develop a relevant research question. You can build on this literature review, for example, by conducting a meta-study. Alternatively, you may conduct you own international comparative case study on government cloud adoption or create your own data set (or database) on government cloud use around the world (e.g., covering cloud providers, cloud spending, operational models, relevant legislation, and other elements) to address your RQ.

Literature to start off with

Liang, Y., Qi, G., Wei, K., & Chen, J. (2017). Exploring the determinant and influence mechanism of e-Government cloud adoption in government agencies in China. Government information quarterly, 34(3), 481-495.

Ali, O., Shrestha, A., Osmanaj, V., & Muhammed, S. (2021). Cloud computing technology adoption: an evaluation of key factors in local governments. Information Technology & People, 34(2), 666-703.

Worldbank (2023). Institutional and Procurement Practice Note on Cloud Computing : Cloud Assessment Framework and Evaluation Methodology (English). Online.

→ If you are interested, please contact: Sofie Schönborn

Digital Public Infrastructure has emerged as a new (and emerging) concept that is envisioned to enable digital transformation and to help improving public service delivery at scale, including “networked open technology standards built for public interest” (UNDP, n.a.). While the concept has found widespread adoption in policy discourse and documents, including in the G20 agenda, the UN Global Digital Compact, and multiple international organizations and national governments, the academic literature on the concept remains sparse so far with most papers and studies emerging after 2022. Moreover, the discussion on DPI often involves reference to open standards and Digital Public Goods or Digital Commons. However, the distinction between the two concepts is currently not clearly established or formulated.

• Review the literature on Digital Public Infrastructure, focusing on academic sources, or including non-academic sources, such as white papers from think tanks, or policy documents. (i) You could augment your work, for example, by conducting a discourse analysis to understand the emergence and propagation of the concept. (ii) You could focus on the conceptual differences and overlaps of DPI vs DPG. (iii) Another interesting avenue for research may relate to initiatives like Eurostack or GovStack by mapping existing components and offerings across the technology stack that contribute to our understanding of existing digital infrastructure across Germany or the European Union.

Literature to start off with

Zuckerman, E. (2020). What is digital public infrastructure?. The Center for Journalism and Liberty.

Eaves, D., Mazzucato, M., & Vasconcellos, B. (2024). Digital public infrastructure and public value: What is ‘public’about DPI?.

Sandhu, K., Dayanandan, A., & Kuntluru, S. (2023). India’s CBDC for digital public infrastructure. Economics Letters, 231, 111302.

UNDP (n.a.). Digital Public Infrastructure. Online. 

→ If you are interested, please contact: Sofie Schönborn

Science diplomacy (SD) is a multifaceted concept that bridges science, international relations, and public policy. It has often been defined as the use of “scientific collaborations among nations to address common challenges and build international partnerships” (Fedoroff, 2009). Over time, SD has evolved from traditional state-centered diplomacy into a more inclusive concept that incorporates non-state actors and institutions, reflecting the growing importance of science, technology, and innovation in global governance. As global challenges become increasingly complex, the role of SD in fostering multilateral and international action has become more significant, for example by informing national policymakers when engaging and participating in global governance. Even with an evolving stack of literature, gaps remain – among others – in empirical research on the impact of different SD initiatives, and in expanding the focus beyond countries of the Global North.

 

• Review the respective literature on science diplomacy, to derive and address a relevant research question. You may, for example, map different types of actors and initiatives in science diplomacy, to derive an extended – or novel – framework suited to describe science diplomacy that includes a variety of non-state actors and institutions.

Literature to start off with

The Royal Society. 2010. New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy: Navigating the Changing Balance of Power. https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/publications/2010/new-frontiers-science-diplomacy/

Copeland, Daryl. 2016. "Science diplomacy." The SAGE handbook of diplomacy: 628-641.

Krasnyak, Olga, and Pierre-Bruno Ruffini. "Science diplomacy." Science 9 (2020): 08.

Berkman, Paul A. 2019. "Evolution of Science Diplomacy and Its Local-Global Applications." European Foreign Affairs Review 24 (Special Issue): 63-80.Turekian, Vaughan C., Sarah Macindoe, Daryl Copeland, Lloyd S. Davis, Robert G. Patman, and Maria Pozza. 2015. "The emergence of science diplomacy." In Science diplomacy: new day or false dawn?, pp. 3-24.

Legrand, Timothy, and Diane Stone. "Science diplomacy and transnational governance impact." British Politics 13 (2018): 392-408.

Flink, Tim. 2022. "Taking the pulse of science diplomacy and developing practices of valuation." Science and Public Policy 49, no. 2: 191-200.

→ If you are interested, please contact: Sofie Schönborn

Even if you can't find open calls here, final theses at the Chair of Public Policy, Governance and Innovative Technology can be possible. For more information about unsolicited applications, registering your thesis and the chair's guidelines, visit Theses. Whether individual members of the team accept theses supervisions at the moment can be found on their individual profiles, see here.