By Alina D. Machande 

The burgeoning field of cyberdeviance lacks a unified conceptual framework, hindering classification and understanding of its subtypes and underlying psychological mechanisms. To address this gap, we conducted two studies. In Study 1 (N = 20), employing the repertory grid technique, we identified five key dimensions of cyberdeviance. In Study 2 (N = 268), participants rated 16 cyberdeviant behaviors on these dimensions, revealing three subtypes: data-oriented, interpersonal, and non-prototypical cyberdeviance. Our findings suggest a shift from singular cyberdeviance investigation toward recognition of its diverse subtypes, each necessitating tailored interventions. By adopting a dimensional approach, we transcend categorical and technocentric perspectives, enabling examination of behavior clusters across cultural and temporal contexts. Our work underscores the importance of integrating foundational deviance theories and expanding conceptual frameworks to comprehensively grasp cyberdeviance phenomena.

The Information Society, 1–19. 2025.

By Spencer Piston,1 Kaneesha R. Johnson,2 Selma Hedlund,3 and Chas Walker

We begin this article by discussing two moments, in the late 1800s and late 1900s, in which the racist views of influential political scientists fundamentally shaped research on policing. In contrast, today’s scholarship, breaking sharply with research of the past, does not attempt to justify racist policing but to study it. The dominant approach today follows a racial disparities framework, which maps out the uneven allocation of police harms. As we discuss, these studies have made valuable contributions to the field and to real-world efforts to resist the damage done by police. At the same time, however, the racial disparities framework has limitations that make it difficult for scholars to understand racist police oppression. We conclude by arguing that, to take the next step forward, future scholarship should follow the lead of and expand upon work that centers the voices of the highly policed.

Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 2025. 28:499–519