What drives new knowledge in human cybersecurity behavior? Insights from bibliometrics and thematic review

IF 4.9 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Dragoș M. Obreja , Răzvan Rughiniș , Dinu Țurcanu
{"title":"What drives new knowledge in human cybersecurity behavior? Insights from bibliometrics and thematic review","authors":"Dragoș M. Obreja ,&nbsp;Răzvan Rughiniș ,&nbsp;Dinu Țurcanu","doi":"10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100650","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Human cybersecurity behavior is an intensely debated topic among researchers and practitioners; however, most approaches highlight forms of hegemonic knowledge centered on Eurocentric paradigms. This research delineates and analyzes the main trends in the spectrum of human cybersecurity relations through a bibliometric analysis of relevant Web of Science publications from 2000 to 2024 (<em>N</em> = 910) and a subsequent thematic review. Our time-zone analysis shows a gradual transition of this knowledge field from hard manifestations of power (such as computer crime or cyberterrorism) to softer and “exotic” forms of power (such as the metaverse, innovation, persuasion, or cryptocurrency). In addition, utilizing the Foucauldian power/knowledge framework within the cybersecurity spectrum, we identify the emergence of alternative forms of counter-knowledge that have been poorly debated in the literature: <em>Global South knowledge</em> highlights the cybersecurity discourses and practices that emerge from the Eurocentric contexts and also presents cybersecurity challenges from underrepresented cultural spaces. While <em>ethically-oriented knowledge</em> highlights alternative forms of cyberbehavior, such as ethical hacking, <em>ideologically-oriented knowledge</em> highlights social categories that are disproportionately disadvantaged in cyberspace, such as women, sexual, racial minorities, or other structural victims debated within a decolonialist framework.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72681,"journal":{"name":"Computers in human behavior reports","volume":"18 ","pages":"Article 100650"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers in human behavior reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S245195882500065X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Human cybersecurity behavior is an intensely debated topic among researchers and practitioners; however, most approaches highlight forms of hegemonic knowledge centered on Eurocentric paradigms. This research delineates and analyzes the main trends in the spectrum of human cybersecurity relations through a bibliometric analysis of relevant Web of Science publications from 2000 to 2024 (N = 910) and a subsequent thematic review. Our time-zone analysis shows a gradual transition of this knowledge field from hard manifestations of power (such as computer crime or cyberterrorism) to softer and “exotic” forms of power (such as the metaverse, innovation, persuasion, or cryptocurrency). In addition, utilizing the Foucauldian power/knowledge framework within the cybersecurity spectrum, we identify the emergence of alternative forms of counter-knowledge that have been poorly debated in the literature: Global South knowledge highlights the cybersecurity discourses and practices that emerge from the Eurocentric contexts and also presents cybersecurity challenges from underrepresented cultural spaces. While ethically-oriented knowledge highlights alternative forms of cyberbehavior, such as ethical hacking, ideologically-oriented knowledge highlights social categories that are disproportionately disadvantaged in cyberspace, such as women, sexual, racial minorities, or other structural victims debated within a decolonialist framework.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信