Critical interdisciplinary cybersecurity: thinking through securing, thinking through fixing

Matt Spencer

Information, Communication & Society2026https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2025.2609783article
AJG 2ABDC A
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Insecure systems are systems that call for a fix. Vulnerabilities attract attention, motivate a response, and evoke futures of risk and repair. But determining what exactly is wrong with a system and what would count as an adequate fix are complex matters that cybersecurity practice must grapple with. How fixes pan out – as ‘quick fixes’ or obstinate problems, as temporary sticking-plasters or permanent solutions – depends on a wide range of factors, including the technicalities of the afflicted system, networks of expertise and institutional contexts that enable information and software sharing, security discourses that set up semantic repertoires for problem formulation, and the interactions of actors, including developers, vendors, risk managers, network engineers, consultants, policymakers, standard setters, and adversaries. The papers in this Special Issue bring a wide range of theories, cases and methods to bear on securing, and offer new insights into the nature of securing as fixing. In this introduction I argue that this collective endeavour of thinking through fixing, thinking through the pragmatics of broken and repaired technology, provides a common ground for the advancement of critical interdisciplinary cybersecurity.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2025.2609783

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{matt2026,
  title        = {{Critical interdisciplinary cybersecurity: thinking through securing, thinking through fixing}},
  author       = {Matt Spencer},
  journal      = {Information, Communication & Society},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2025.2609783},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Critical interdisciplinary cybersecurity: thinking through securing, thinking through fixing

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.