The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Talking AI into Being: The Narratives and Imaginaries of National AI Strategies and Their Performative Politics
Open accessAbstract
How to integrate artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in the functioning and structures of our society has become a concern of contemporary politics and public debates. In this paper, we investigate national AI strategies as a peculiar form of co-shaping this development, a hybrid of policy and discourse that offers imaginaries, allocates resources, and sets rules. Conceptually, the paper is informed by sociotechnical imaginaries, the sociology of expectations, myths, and the sublime. Empirically we analyze AI policy documents of four key players in the field, namely China, the United States, France, and Germany. The results show that the narrative construction of AI strategies is strikingly similar: they all establish AI as an inevitable and massively disrupting technological development by building on rhetorical devices such as a grand legacy and international competition. Having established this inevitable, yet uncertain, AI future, national leaders proclaim leadership intervention and articulate opportunities and distinct national pathways. While this narrative construction is quite uniform, the respective AI imaginaries are remarkably different, reflecting the vast cultural, political, and economic differences of the countries under study. As governments endow these imaginary pathways with massive resources and investments, they contribute to coproducing the installment of these futures and, thus, yield a performative lock-in function.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2 · Cited by 6,220
Long-Term Trends in the Public Perception of Artificial Intelligence
Fast, E., & Horvitz, E. (2017) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v31i1.10635 · Cited by 467 · cited 1×
“Here, business actors feature much more often in AI reporting than other stakeholders (Brennen, Howard, and Nielsen 2018; Chuan, Tsai, and Cho 2019; Fast and Horvitz 2017).”
BackgroundETHICS AS AN ESCAPE FROM REGULATION.: FROM “ETHICS-WASHING” TO ETHICS-SHOPPING?
WAGNER, B. (2018) · BEING PROFILED · doi:10.2307/j.ctvhrd092.18 · Cited by 228 · cited 1×
“While this rise of ethical guidelines certainly constitutes a strategic move by the corporate sector to escape actual regulation (Wagner 2018), it also functions as a tool for governance, at least by shaping the very understanding of AI and its normative challenges (Larsson 2020).”
BackgroundOn the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines
LARSSON, S. (2020) · Asian Journal of Law and Society · doi:10.1017/als.2020.19 · Cited by 156 · cited 1×
“While this rise of ethical guidelines certainly constitutes a strategic move by the corporate sector to escape actual regulation (Wagner 2018), it also functions as a tool for governance, at least by shaping the very understanding of AI and its normative challenges (Larsson 2020).”
BackgroundThe end(s) of critique: data behaviourism versus due process
(2013) · Privacy, Due Process and the Computational Turn · doi:10.4324/9780203427644-16 · Cited by 138 · cited 1×
“…sociology and history of science have already studied multiple cycles of hypes and “AI winters” (Bostrom 2014) and extensively documented and analyzed the social construction of knowledge, scientific practices, and expertise in AI (Woolgar 1985; Courtial and Law 1989; Collins 1993; Suchman 2007).”
BackgroundZeng, J., Chan, C.-H., & Schäfer, M. S. (2022) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2020.1776372 · Cited by 102
Cited by
Possible harms of Artificial Intelligence and the EU AI Act: fundamental rights and risk
Kusche, I. (2024) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669877.2024.2350720 · Cited by 87
The answer is (not only) technological: Considering student data privacy in learning analytics
Prinsloo, P., Slade, S., & Khalil, M. (2022) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13216 · Cited by 77
Sigfrids, A., Nieminen, M., Leikas, J., & Pikkuaho, P. (2022) · Frontiers in Human Dynamics · doi:10.3389/fhumd.2022.858108 · Cited by 50
“Such framing partially guides the funding of AI, objectives of AI development, and AI governance principles (Ulnicane et al., 2020; Bareis and Katzenbach, 2021).”
Backgroundvan Es, K., & Nguyen, D. (2025) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-024-02108-6 · Cited by 37
Haimson, O. L., Mayworm, S. R., Ingber, A. S., & Andalibi, N. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3715275.3732081 · Cited by 25
Metadata
- Authors
- Bareis, J., & Katzenbach, C.
- Venue
- Science, Technology, & Human Values
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2021-07-14
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 855-881
- ISSN
- 0162-2439 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8251
- OpenAlex
- W3179143844
- Cited by
- 484
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 66.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Talking AI into Being: The Narratives and Imaginaries of National AI Strategies and Their Performative Politics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/01622439211030007
- The paper
- Bareis, J., & Katzenbach, C. (2022). Talking AI into Being: The Narratives and Imaginaries of National AI Strategies and Their Performative Politics. Science, Technology, & Human Values. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439211030007
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.