CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 60Crime, Deviance, and Social ControlEthics and Social Impacts of AICriminal Justice and Penology

Rethinking how Technologies Harm

Open access
Wood, Mark A·2021·The British Journal of Criminology
DOI 10.1093/bjc/azaa074
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Understanding how technologies contribute to social harms is a perennial issue, animating debate within and well beyond criminology. This article contributes to these debates in two ways. First, it critically examines five of the key approaches criminologists have used to think through how technologies contribute to harms. Second, it proposes a new approach to understanding ‘technology–harm relations’. Bringing the theory of critical realism, Simondon and Floridi into conversation, the proposed approach offers a stratigraphy of harm that enables us to excavate the different layers of human–technology and technology–harm relations. In doing so, it enables us to distinguish between four technology–harm relations that untangle the socio-technicality of harmful events: instrumental utility harms, generative utility harms, instrumental technicity harms and generative technicity harms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/bjc/azaa074

Cites

98 of 98 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This convergence facilitates the production of 'generative harms' (Wood, 2021), which considers what technologies do to actors and how technologies amplify and facilitate societal harms that go beyond the use of technology.

    “We contend that this convergence facilitates the production of 'generative harms' (Wood, 2021), which considers what technologies do to actors and how technologies amplify and facilitate societal harms that go beyond the use of technology.”

    From Mainstreaming the Blackpill: Understanding the Incel Community on TikTok (2023) · cites this paper as Wood, 2021

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 99 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Brey, 2000, ‘Technology as Extension of Human Faculties, 59
  2. Frauley, 2011, Critical Realist Criminology’,, 145
  3. Garland, 2012, The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. University of Chicago Press.
  4. Grabosky, 2016, Cybercrime
  5. Kim, 1999, 95, 3
  6. McGlynn, 2017, 25, 25
  7. Tift, 2001, A Needs-Based, Social Harm Definition of Crime’,, 179
  8. Wall, 2007, Cybercrime: The Transformation of Crime in the Internet Age
  9. 2019, What Is Realist About Ultra-Realist Criminology? A Critical Appraisal of The Perspective’, Journal of Theoretical & Philosophical Criminology, 11, 95

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Wood, M. A.
Affiliations
Deakin University (AU)
Corresponding author
Wood, Mark A
ORCID
Wood, Mark A
Venue
The British Journal of Criminology
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2020-11-24
Volume
61
Issue
3
Pages
627-647
ISSN
  • 0007-0955 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3529
DOI
10.1093/bjc/azaa074
OpenAlex
W3107835879
Cited by
60
References
99
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 1
FWCI
8.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • The British Journal of Criminology (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime, Deviance, and Social Control
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
Keywords
critical realism, Gilbert Simondon, Floridi, human-technology relations

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