↓ Skip to main content

Critical Theory as an Approach to the Ethics of Information Security

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Critical Theory as an Approach to the Ethics of Information Security
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, November 2013
DOI 10.1007/s11948-013-9496-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bernd Carsten Stahl, Neil F. Doherty, Mark Shaw, Helge Janicke

Abstract

Information security can be of high moral value. It can equally be used for immoral purposes and have undesirable consequences. In this paper we suggest that critical theory can facilitate a better understanding of possible ethical issues and can provide support when finding ways of addressing them. The paper argues that critical theory has intrinsic links to ethics and that it is possible to identify concepts frequently used in critical theory to pinpoint ethical concerns. Using the example of UK electronic medical records the paper demonstrates that a critical lens can highlight issues that traditional ethical theories tend to overlook. These are often linked to collective issues such as social and organisational structures, which philosophical ethics with its typical focus on the individual does not tend to emphasise. The paper suggests that this insight can help in developing ways of researching and innovating responsibly in the area of information security.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 138 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 24%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 14%
Researcher 13 9%
Student > Master 13 9%
Student > Postgraduate 11 8%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 27 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 32 23%
Social Sciences 20 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 16 11%
Psychology 10 7%
Arts and Humanities 6 4%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 33 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 May 2019.
All research outputs
#6,839,484
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#456
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,654
of 314,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#7
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,289 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.