Network Topography, Key Players and Terrorist Networks

In recent years social network analysis (SNA) has enhanced our understanding of how terrorist networks organize themselves and has offered potential strategies for their disruption. To date, however, SNA research of terrorist networks has tended to focus on key actors within the network who score high in terms of centrality or whose structural location (i.e., their location within the overall network) allows them to broker information and/or resources within the network. However, while such a focus is intuitively appealing and can provide short-term satisfaction, it may be putting the cart before the horse. Before jumping to the identification of key actors, we need to first explore a network’s overall topography. Research suggests that networks that are too provincial (i.e., dense, high levels of clustering, an overabundance of strong ties) too cosmopolitan (i.e., sparse, low levels of clustering, an overabundance of weak ties), too hierarchical (i.e., centralized, low levels of variance) and/or too heterarchical (i.e., decentralized, high levels of variance) tend not to perform as well as networks that maintain a balance between these extremes. If these dynamics hold true for terrorist networks as well, then the key player approach may be appropriate in some circumstances, but may lead to deleterious results in others. More importantly, it suggests that analysts need to consider a network’s overall topography before crafting strategies for their disruption. Authors Sean F Everton, PhD is an Assistant Professor in the Defense Analysis Department at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA. He is also the Co-Director of the Common Operational Research Environment (CORE) Lab, which is part of the Defense Analysis Department and specializes in the application of new analytical methodologies (e.g., social network and geospatial analysis) to the crafting of strategies at the operational and tactical levels. While most of his work focuses on social network analysis, he has also published in the areas of sociology of religion, economic sociology, and political and social

[1]  David Tucker,et al.  Terrorism, Networks, and Strategy: Why the Conventional Wisdom Is Wrong , 2008 .

[2]  B. Uzzi,et al.  The Sources and Consequences of Embeddedness for the Economic Performance of Organizations: The Network Effect , 1996 .

[3]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[4]  Kathleen M. Carley,et al.  Structural Knowledge and Success of Anti-Terrorist Activity: The Downside of Structural Equivalence , 2005, J. Soc. Struct..

[5]  John Arquilla,et al.  What Next for Networks and Netwars , 2001 .

[6]  R. Stark Why religious movements succeed or fail: A revised general model , 1996 .

[7]  Marc Sageman,et al.  Leaderless Jihad , 2011 .

[8]  K. Gurney,et al.  Network ‘Small-World-Ness’: A Quantitative Method for Determining Canonical Network Equivalence , 2008, PloS one.

[9]  H. Gooren The Rise of Mormonism , 2008 .

[10]  M. Castells The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture , 1999 .

[11]  Kenneth Nyberg,et al.  Sociology , 2002, Encyclopedia of Information Systems.

[12]  A. Perliger,et al.  The Changing Nature of Suicide Attacks - A Social Network Perspective , 2006, Social Forces.

[13]  Marc Sageman,et al.  Understanding terror networks. , 2004, International journal of emergency mental health.

[14]  Vladimir Batagelj,et al.  Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek , 2005 .

[15]  B. Pescosolido,et al.  Durkheim, suicide, and religion: toward a network theory of suicide. , 1989, American sociological review.

[16]  Mark S. Granovetter Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness , 1985, American Journal of Sociology.

[17]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994, Structural analysis in the social sciences.

[18]  M. Castells The rise of the network society , 1996 .

[19]  R. Stark,et al.  The Churching of America, 1776-2005: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy , 1993 .

[20]  W. Powell Hybrid Organizational Arrangements: New Form or Transitional Development? , 1987 .

[21]  Mark S. Granovetter The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[22]  H. Milward,et al.  Dark Networks as Problems , 2003 .

[23]  A. Chandler,et al.  Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128 , 1994 .

[24]  Catherine Balagtas,et al.  Getting that job. , 2012, Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987).

[25]  B. Uzzi,et al.  Collaboration and Creativity: The Small World Problem1 , 2005, American Journal of Sociology.

[26]  D. Krackhardt The strength of strong ties: The importance of Philos in organizations , 2003 .

[27]  Brian Uzzi,et al.  A social network's changing statistical properties and the quality of human innovation , 2008 .

[28]  AnnaLee Saxenian,et al.  Inside-Out : Regional Networks and Industrial Adaptation in Silicon Valley and Route 128 , 1996 .

[29]  Mark S. Granovetter The Impact of Social Structure on Economic Outcomes Social Networks and Economic Outcomes: Core Principles , 2022 .

[30]  Nils Petter Gleditsch,et al.  Structural parameters of graphs. A theoretical investigation , 1970 .

[31]  D. Krackhardt Graph theoretical dimensions of informal organizations , 1994 .

[32]  John Scott Social Network Analysis , 1988 .

[33]  W. Powell,et al.  Networks and Economic life , 2003 .

[34]  J. Coleman Introduction to Mathematical Sociology , 1965 .

[35]  Mark S. Granovetter T H E S T R E N G T H O F WEAK TIES: A NETWORK THEORY REVISITED , 1983 .

[36]  R. Eccles,et al.  Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action , 1992 .

[37]  Manuel Castells,et al.  The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Vol. 2: The Power of Identity , 1998, Contemporary Sociology.