2026
Anderson, Joel; Hopster, Jeroen; Lundgren, Björn
Defining socially disruptive technologies and reframing the ethical challenges they pose Journal Article
In: Technology in Society, 2026.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Collective action, Coping resources, Definition, Disorientation, Inequality, Social disruptive technologies, Technosocial disruption
@article{nokey,
title = {Defining socially disruptive technologies and reframing the ethical challenges they pose},
author = {Joel Anderson and Jeroen Hopster and Björn Lundgren},
url = {https://www.esdit.nl/wp-content/uploads/Articel-JA-JH-BL.pdf},
doi = {0.1016/j.techsoc.2026.103216},
year = {2026},
date = {2026-02-05},
journal = {Technology in Society},
abstract = {Socially Disruptive Technologies (SDTs) loom large in public debate, yet scholarly discourse on the ethical implications of social disruption is still in its infancy. This article makes two contributions to advance this discourse. First, we propose and defend a new definition of SDTs that allows for classification of those technologies that warrant further ethical analysis, specifically in virtue of their socially disruptive nature (among the examples we discuss are deepfakes, cultured meat, birth control technologies). This is the applied value of the framework we offer: to offer guidance in identifying which technologies require specific scrutiny as SDT, and guidance in identifying an initial set of ethical tools to accompany such analysis. Second, we reframe the ethics of social disruption by highlighting how SDTs pose challenges to capacities for normative orientation and joint action-coordination and by foregrounding the potentially stratified availability of the resources needed to overcome or mitigate these challenges. We argue that although the burdensome disruptiveness means that SDTs characteristically have, at least in a “narrow” sense, a pro tanto negative valence, they may nonetheless turn out to contribute to significant social and moral progress. The ethical concerns raised by SDTs require an approach that is sensitive both to the challenges inherent in the disruption and to its eventual outcome.},
keywords = {Collective action, Coping resources, Definition, Disorientation, Inequality, Social disruptive technologies, Technosocial disruption},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Socially Disruptive Technologies (SDTs) loom large in public debate, yet scholarly discourse on the ethical implications of social disruption is still in its infancy. This article makes two contributions to advance this discourse. First, we propose and defend a new definition of SDTs that allows for classification of those technologies that warrant further ethical analysis, specifically in virtue of their socially disruptive nature (among the examples we discuss are deepfakes, cultured meat, birth control technologies). This is the applied value of the framework we offer: to offer guidance in identifying which technologies require specific scrutiny as SDT, and guidance in identifying an initial set of ethical tools to accompany such analysis. Second, we reframe the ethics of social disruption by highlighting how SDTs pose challenges to capacities for normative orientation and joint action-coordination and by foregrounding the potentially stratified availability of the resources needed to overcome or mitigate these challenges. We argue that although the burdensome disruptiveness means that SDTs characteristically have, at least in a “narrow” sense, a pro tanto negative valence, they may nonetheless turn out to contribute to significant social and moral progress. The ethical concerns raised by SDTs require an approach that is sensitive both to the challenges inherent in the disruption and to its eventual outcome.
2024
Kamphorst, Bart; Anderson, Joel
E-coaching systems and social justice: ethical concerns about inequality, coercion, and stigmatization Journal Article
In: AI and Ethics, pp. 1-10, 2024.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Coercion, E-coaching systems, Ethics, Inequality, social justice, Stigmatisation
@article{Kamphorst2024,
title = {E-coaching systems and social justice: ethical concerns about inequality, coercion, and stigmatization},
author = {Bart Kamphorst and Joel Anderson},
url = {https://www.esdit.nl/ecoaching_systems_and_social_justice_ethical_conc-wageningen_university_and_research_650099/},
doi = {10.1007/s43681-024-00424-7},
year = {2024},
date = {2024-02-19},
urldate = {2024-02-19},
journal = {AI and Ethics},
pages = {1-10},
abstract = {Poor self-regulation has been linked to various behaviors that contribute to pressing societal issues, including rising household debt, inefficient use of sustainable resources, and increasing healthcare demands. In light of this observation, the prospect of individuals receiving automated, tailored support by “e-coaching systems” to scaffold and improve their self-regulation is thought to hold promise for making society-wide progress in addressing such issues. Though there may be legitimate reasons for promoting the use of such systems, and individuals might welcome the support, our aim in the present article is to contribute to the ethics of e-coaching by showing how societal pressures towards the widespread adoption of automated e-coaching systems raise concerns in relation to three distinct aspects of social justice. We argue that societal inequalities may be introduced or exacerbated by (1) unequal access to the technologies, (2) unequally distributed restrictions to liberty and subjection to coercion, and (3) the potentially disparate impact of the use of e-coaching technologies on (self-)stigmatizing perceptions of competence. The article offers a research agenda for studying and addressing these concerns.},
keywords = {Coercion, E-coaching systems, Ethics, Inequality, social justice, Stigmatisation},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Poor self-regulation has been linked to various behaviors that contribute to pressing societal issues, including rising household debt, inefficient use of sustainable resources, and increasing healthcare demands. In light of this observation, the prospect of individuals receiving automated, tailored support by “e-coaching systems” to scaffold and improve their self-regulation is thought to hold promise for making society-wide progress in addressing such issues. Though there may be legitimate reasons for promoting the use of such systems, and individuals might welcome the support, our aim in the present article is to contribute to the ethics of e-coaching by showing how societal pressures towards the widespread adoption of automated e-coaching systems raise concerns in relation to three distinct aspects of social justice. We argue that societal inequalities may be introduced or exacerbated by (1) unequal access to the technologies, (2) unequally distributed restrictions to liberty and subjection to coercion, and (3) the potentially disparate impact of the use of e-coaching technologies on (self-)stigmatizing perceptions of competence. The article offers a research agenda for studying and addressing these concerns.