The art and science of communications: From strategic to personal

Category Archives: Communication technology

Terrorism and New Media: Building a Research Network
Dublin City University: Wednesday 8 – Thursday 10 Sept 2010
Whether Bin Laden, al-Qaida’s Egyptian theorist Ayman al-Zawahiri and their colleagues are on a mountain in the Hindu Kush or living with their beards shaved off in a suburb of Karachi no longer matters to the organisation. They can inspire and guide a worldwide movement without physically meeting their followers – without even knowing who they are.
– Paul Eedle

Conference Organisers

Rationale

The purpose of this conference is to bring together academics from a broad range of disciplines with policy-makers and security practitioners that have knowledge and/or expertise that can facilitate advances in the study of Terrorism and New Media, particularly the Internet, in novel ways.

Programme

This is the first academic conference to subject the relationship between terrorism and new media, particularly the Internet, to truly multi-disciplinary scrutiny. The one-day conference (Wednesday, 8 September) will feature a series of panels and a number of plenary addresses. The conference will be followed on Thursday, 9 September by a workshop devoted to the robust debate and analysis of currently ‘hot’ topics in the realm of terrorism and the Internet, particularly the question of the role of the Internet in processes of radicalisation.

Full Programme Details »

Call for Papers

We welcome papers or panels reporting on innovative research into any aspect of terrorism and new media. We particularly welcome papers or panels that report novel results or describe and employ innovative methodological approaches.

Papers or panels on the following topics will be of particular interest:

  • Online radicalisation
  • The Internet and recruitment
  • Old terrorism and new media
  • Methodologies for terrorism-related Internet research
  • Terrorism informatics
  • Network analysis and online terrorist activity
  • New Internet tools/platforms and radicalisation/terrorism (for example, online gaming, video-sharing, photo-sharing, social networking, micro-blogging, online payment mechanisms, etc.)
  • Cyberterrorism
  • Violent Islamism and the Internet
  • The content and functioning of jihadi Internet forums
  • Jihadi video producers and content
  • Children/youth, terrorism, and new media
  • Women/gender, terrorism, and new media
  • Case studies of particular groups’ use of new media (e.g. al-Qaeda, FARC, Hamas, Hizbollah, dissident Irish Republicans, etc.)
  • Policy/legislative responses to terrorists’ online presence
  • Critical responses to research on, reporting of, and governmental responses to the conjunction of terrorism and the Internet
  • Ethical issues surrounding online terrorism-related research

Perspectives from any academic discipline are welcomed, particularly: communications, computer science, cultural studies, information science, international relations, internet studies, law, media studies, philosophy, political science, psychology, and sociology.

Authors of individual papers should submit a 300-word abstract at our proposal submission page on or before 17 May 2010.

Media, War & ConflictA selection of accepted papers will be considered for publication in a special issue of the journal Media, War & Conflict.

Travel Funding for Graduate Students

The Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School, University of Southern California (USC) will provide US$700 in sponsorship for a graduate student to attend at *and blog* from the conference for the Center. Graduate students wishing to apply for this funding should indicate same when submitting their abstract.

The conference organisers are also in a position to provide a number of travel grants for graduate students. Support may be requested for transportation and accommodation. Students should provide a breakdown of the estimated cost of travel and accommodation upon submitting an application. Graduate students wishing to apply for funding can do so when submitting an abstract. Award decisions will be made by 14 June 2010.

More travel funding details »

Deadlines

  • Abstract deadline: 300 words to be submitted HERE by 17 May 2010
  • Registration: from 1 June 2010
  • Decision on abstracts: 14 June 2010
  • Decision on travel funding awards: 14 June 2010
  • Early bird registration deadline: 8 July
  • Hotel reservation deadline at conference rate: 19 July 2010

Conference: TERRORISM and NEW MEDIA
Dublin City University, Ireland
8 – 9 September 2010
WEBSITE: http://www.dcu.ie/~cis/TNM/index.html

ORGANISERS
• Conference Chair: Dr. Maura Conway
• Co-Organiser: Lisa McInerney

All queries and conference-related correspondence should be directed to:  terrorisminternetconf@dcu.ie

PLENARY SPEAKERS
– Dr. Jarret Brachman, North Dakota State University
– Dr. John Horgan, International Center for the Study of
Terrorism,Pennsylvania State University
– Prof. Philip Seib, Annenberg School, University of Southern California

RATIONALE
The purpose of this conference is to bring together academics from a broad range of disciplines with policy-makers and security practitioners that have knowledge and/or expertise that can facilitate advances in the study of Terrorism and New Media, particularly the Internet, in novel ways.

PROGRAMME
This is the first academic conference to subject the relationship between terrorism and new media, particularly the Internet, to truly multi-disciplinary scrutiny. The one-day conference (Wednesday, 8 September) will feature a series of panels and a number of plenary addresses. The conference will be followed on Thursday, 9 September by a workshop devoted to the robust debate and analysis of currently ‘hot’ topics in the realm of terrorism and the Internet, particularly the question of the role of the Internet in processes of radicalisation.

Terrorism: What is going on in cyberspace?

CALL FOR PAPERS
We welcome papers or panels reporting on innovative research into any aspect of terrorism and new media. We particularly welcome papers or panels that report novel results or describe and employ innovative methodological approaches.

Papers or panels on the following topics will be of particular interest:

• Online radicalisation
• The Internet and recruitment
• Old terrorism and new media
• Methodologies for terrorism-related Internet research
• Terrorism informatics
• Network analysis and online terrorist activity
• New Internet tools/platforms and radicalisation/terrorism (for example,
online gaming, video-sharing, photo-sharing, social networking,
micro-blogging, online payment mechanisms, etc.) • Cyberterrorism
• Violent Islamism and the Internet
• The content and functioning of jihadi Internet forums
• Jihadi video producers and content
• Children/youth, terrorism, and new media
• Women/gender, terrorism, and new media
• Case studies of particular groups’ use of new media (e.g. al-Qaeda, FARC,
Hamas, Hizbollah, dissident Irish Republicans, etc.)
• Policy/legislative responses to terrorists’ online presence
• Critical responses to research on, reporting of, and governmental
responses to the conjunction of terrorism and the Internet
• Ethical issues surrounding online terrorism-related research

Perspectives from any academic discipline are welcomed, particularly: communications, computer science, cultural studies, information science, international relations, internet studies, law, media studies, philosophy, political science, psychology, and sociology.

Authors of individual papers should submit a 300-word abstract via the conference website (http://www.dcu.ie/~cis/TNM/index.html
<http://www.dcu.ie/%7Ecis/TNM/index.html) on or before 17 May 2010.

A selection of accepted papers will be considered for publication in a special issue of the journal Media, War & Conflict.

REGISTRATION

The conference will open for registration from 1 June 2010.
Registration Fees are as follows:
Standard: €130 (Late reg., post 8 July: €195) Graduate Student: €65
(Late reg., post 8 July: €110)

Conference fee includes teas/coffees, lunch, welcome reception on the evening of Tuesday September 7 and the conference dinner on the evening of Wednesday September 8.

DEADLINES

• Abstract deadline: 300 words to be submitted by 17 May 2010
• Registration: from 1 June 2010
• Decision on abstracts: 14 June 2010
• Decision on travel funding awards: 14 June 2010
• Early bird registration deadline: 8 July
• Hotel reservation deadline at conference rate: 19 July 2010


Within academic and especially scientific research there has been, for centuries, a reductionist drive – the desire to break down complex structures, entities, organisms or theories into their simplest form – to form all-encompassing explanations or unifying theories.  This, in political or social sciences, and equally in management or organisational studies, is hindered by what seems to be an inherent human capability to produce complex structures to manage, lead, empower, enact and organise, amidst what can be seen as equally complex environments.  Top-down hierarchies have remained at the heart of attempt to maintain a reductionist approach to multi-faceted, multi-layered and often multilateral entities. Whilst these environments are often indeed complex, technology has allowed, even encouraged, the management, using complex systems and practices, of more intricate and intertwined top-down structures.  But the networked society and networked organisation is inherently complex, with a multitude of actors, each with a multitude of opinions and means to communicate and enact them.  Whilst, on the one hand, technology has enabled, to a degree, some control over these actors, this technology has also made for an increasingly difficult environment within which to exercise control.  This is especially apparent in the case of warfare, in which command and control has been a mainstay of its organisational capacity.  Modern warfare, far from its industrial hay day, now encapsulates complex environmental factors, not least the communication and information factors, which challenge increasingly complex organisational structures and alliances, such as NATO.

Nick Davies has a Flat Earth obsession too (and opinions on strategic communication)

The information age has provided a clarion call for many who claim that top-down, reductionist approaches to communication, and thereby its, and wider, management, is incapable of dealing with the complexities of the 21st century.  Within political science and international studies, there are many adherents to this call – from a geostrategic viewpoint, expounded by Thomas Friedman in ‘The World is Flat[1]; from a public diplomacy perspective, raised by Nicholas Cull in calling for ‘the reorientation of public diplomacy away from the top-down communication patterns of the Cold War era’[2] and by Daryl Copeland with his ideas of the networked, grass-roots guerrilla diplomacy[3].

Albeit outside strict political science but possibly through a more focussed lens, there are those who claim to have seen the light and, much more importantly, translated its teachings into reality, from a communication technology position, in which Eric Raymond has broached the now widely accepted notion, having translated into wider communication wisdom, of the Cathedral and the Bazaar[4]; to advocates of 21st century economics based around mass innovation, not mass production, or wikinomics – those such as Charles Leadbetter[5], Don Tapscott, Anthony D Williams[6], Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom[7].

In communication terms, loose networks, as practiced by activists from Greenpeace to the Obama presidential campaign, at one end of the spectrum, and utilized to great physical effect by terrorist groups from Al Qaida to Hezbollah, regularly outperform top-down, mechanistic organisations, be they corporate conglomerates or inter-governmental organisations.  That the former tend to place communication at the centre of strategy explains, to a degree, their considerable capabilities.  But it is also their willingness, and ability, to embrace openness, accept risk, encourage member collaboration, eschew hierarchy and allow innovation within an environment in which a ‘bazaar’ mentality is pervasive, which allows them to synergistically punch above their weight.  Their organizational structures, culture, ethos and management are optimized, by design or otherwise, to operate in the information age – an age which Clay Shirky calls a “new information ecosystem” creating “new social strategies” in a world that privileges networks over hierarchies.

Working within the communication sections of large multilateral organisations, like NATO, many would agree that top-down, mechanistic management practices often stymie communication efforts.  Arguably, many would at least prefer a greater degree of autonomy, and a flatter, networked system.  Indeed, knowledge management or ‘network-centric’ practices have, in the last decade, been developed rapidly, seen as a major factor of information management in modern military doctrines as well as in the corporate world.  However, the management practices allowing that information to be utilized continue to present problems – operators may indeed know a lot more but still can’t use that knowledge effectively.  Networks only really become effective when those within them are allowed to use the value-added that being within a network affords them.

In areas driven by information and innovation, this is where the likes of Linux, Goldcorp, World of Warcraft, the Human Genome Project, Lego and increasingly the likes of Nokia, Proctor & Gamble and IBM, and many more, are going – empowering networks, with some remarkable success.  However, the transformation to an organisational, managerial and cultural space previously anathema to capitalist corporate ideals has required considerable leaps of faith.

But people even in the foreign policy world are taking tentative, if small, steps in this direction. One example is Diplopedia – “grass-roots technology in a top-down organization,” according to Eric M. Johnson of the State Department’s Office of eDiplomacy.  Diplopedia, being a wiki, is open to the contributions of all who work in the State Department.[8] This has involved a culture shift from a “need to know culture” to a “need to share culture” evoking Pierre Levy’s idea of “we think, therefore we are”[9] suffused with Leadbeater’s “you are what you share”[10].

It’s a small step but it is indicative of a potential, seismic shift in thought about how we manage and then use information, in the same sense that communications professionals manage and use information.

Admittedly, this approach is not for all.  Strict security, defence, strategic policy, political machinations, negotiations and alliance concensus-building and decision-making may not be suitable for this collaborative, participative, self-organising, collectivist, horizontal networking style of management.  But, it has been remarkably successful in areas which thrive on information, ideas and innovation.  The question is: could it be useful in the management of communication within complex organisations operating in complex environments?

The technology is there but do we have the cerebral capacity, cultural flexibility and management ethos to use it effectively?  This sort of question has been raised before.  In the military context, the development of tank warfare strategy was slow to take shape despite the technology rapidly improving and a similar case can be made for air power.   Both required a culture shift to allow effective use of technology.

It can be argued that the widespread approach to strategic communication and public diplomacy, despite acknowledging the need for a change, is driven through adaptation of existing practices, denying the idea of a paradigm shift.  We are using new information technologies to merely create efficiencies and legitimize traditional tasks.  But, as Bruce Gregory points out “in today’s global information environment, we must do more than adapt – we must transform”[11].

Playing this ...

A senior NATO communications officer put it succinctly by claiming that even the widespread use of social media within NATO is being seen as a new club from the hierarchical golf bag.  However, the point is that the game has changed, and the world is no longer playing golf.  This, he claims, is like playing football with a golf club. Still operating as a hierarchy but in a networked world, he countenances throwing the rule book out and starting again – transforming not merely adapting.

At a higher level, governments and NATO, can be seen struggling with the Comprehensive Approach.  At its core the Comprehensive Approach tends toward the notion of collaboration, the very essence of the fully utilised networked environment, but can be seen to be faltering through the maintenance of hierarchical, top-down organisational culture inherent within its system.

Of course, it can be argued that a military alliance can never really adapt to such levels of self-organising and flat management culture.  The provision of organised violence through war demands a top-down command and control structure.  Indeed so.  But there are three aspects to this argument to be considered.  Firstly, modern warfare is increasingly fought in the information domain, a domain unlike any previous incarnation, rapidly evolving, less reliant upon outright violence and with innumerable actors. Secondly, modern warfare has adapted already to deal with the restrictions placed upon it through strict command and control protocols by encouraging the philosophy of mission command.  And thirdly, the ideals of flat, networked, collaborative structures and practice do not encourage pure self-organising without leadership.  In fact, all the success stories mentioned above have required a core, a guidance function – to all intents, a degree of leadership.

Furthermore, with regard to communications within military organisations, the thrust of this academic exercise, the function has always ‘enjoyed’ unique management practices because of its specialised nature – nowhere is the ‘thousand mile screwdriver’ as well utilised yet, equally, hardly any other functions have immediate management access to the hierarchy.  On most military HQ organigrams, just look for the dotted line between Public Affairs or Media Ops to the Command.  The notions of flat, collaborative, networked management primarily work for information driven activities and nowhere in a headquarters is information more of a direct force multiplier than when used by the communication function, be it information operations or public affairs.  The point here is that, while this new philosophy may have some limited utility within general management practice of military alliances, communications management within such is ripe for such transformation.

Yet, has this been examined seriously?  One could fill two thirds of the Royal Albert Hall with books on corporate management, including public relations or communications management.  The other third could accommodate the vast number of papers on military and foreign policy communications practices, especially propaganda, information operations and psyops.

However, of the latter, the vast majority of academic research, debate, discussion and dialogue connected with this area deal with externalities – i.e. concerned with how to strategically communicate, influence, coerce, persuade others – target audiences, be they citizens or consumers, foreign or domestic, friendly or hostile, population or insurgent – using various practices from TV spots to focus groups to social media and theories from social psychology to behavioural economics.  However, the approach encouraged focuses 180 degrees away, looking at the internalities – i.e how organisations manage communication, organise communicative practice, create a communicative culture in order to facilitate effective strategic communication via the externalities.  Specifically it suggests that the internalities – management, culture, structure, dynamics, ethos – of a highly political multilateral organization within an environment of multi-layered complexity play a massive role in achieving its goals.

As such, this area is indeed multi-disciplinary, existing at the nexus of international relations, security studies, organizational theory and communication management.

... when everyone else is playing this?

This approach is not necessarily focussed on how to persuade Afghan tribesmen to deny succour to Taliban raiders, nor does it examine how to convince the US population that the Afghan strategy is working and worth continuing.  These sorts of questions are wrestled with by many on a daily basis, from the newsrooms of the media to the military staff colleges of NATO nations.  There is no need to add to that cacophony.

However, it does appear that NATO and other militaries and governments, are reticent to seriously examine their own internal issues with regard to these communication needs.  Despite the common rhetoric, the discipline of corporate public relations is remarkably inward-looking, determined to fully understand the cultural web of an organization, in order to enable it to present itself to the world.  Only then can effective transformation, if needed, be enacted. The practice of strategic communication, and the endeavours within its rubric – public diplomacy, information operations and public affairs – have yet to achieve that maturity of discipline and management, and especially culture.  But, despite utilizing networking technologies, there is evidence that such immaturity, remaining shackled to a reductionist, hierarchical command and control framework, continuing to merely adapt existing practices, is negatively affecting the ability to use information and communicate it effectively.

The importance of culture to military communications practitioners applies to the culture of a target audience, with scant, if any, regard to the fact that there is a culture within, the understanding of which is just as important to a dialogical engagement as the protocols, routines, ritual, histories, narratives, codes and mores of  those being engaged.  Unfortunately culture is apparently something we need to know about others, as endless information operations workshops will attest.

Culture shift is always a controversial issue, fraught with philosophical difficulties and guarded against by powerful institutional inertia.  But culture shift is happening out there and some are successfully transforming themselves to deal with it.  This new culture of collaboration, flat management, open-source and interconnectivity will not provide the likes of NATO with the answers to all its communication issues but there are undoubtedly lessons to be learnt…

… Lesson 1: leave your golf clubs at home and start playing football.

And just to put our money where our mouth is (to coin an old English phrase) this is going to developed further via a wiki.  So feel free to have your say/comment/rant at http://natostratcom.wikia.com/


[1] ‘The World is Flat’ (2005)

[2] ‘Engagement: Public Diplomacy in a Globalised World’ (2008), p.25

[3] ‘Guerilla Diplomacy’ (2009)

[4] ‘The Cathedral and the Bazaar’ (1999)

[5] ‘We-Think’ (2008)

[6] ‘Wikinomics’ (2007)

[7] ‘The Starfish and the Spider’ (2006)

[8] New York Times 4 August 2008 ‘An Internal Wiki that’s not Classified’ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/04/business/media/04link.html?_r=1

[9] ‘Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s Emerging World in Cyberspace’ (1999)

[10] ‘We-Think’ (2008)

[11] http://www.gwu.edu/~ipdgc/assets/docs/mapping_smartpower_gregory.pdf


The recent change in social media policy by US DoD is a sign of the times and in fact may represent a real paradigm shift in management culture surrounding the relationship between military personnel and the outside world.  Whilst CB3 welcomes this move, appreciating that it won’t come without its pitfalls and problems, the deeper societal, psychological, cultural, relational, management and organisational ramifications of this move are as yet unknown.  This may be only the start of the shifting of institutionally inert techtonic plates – watch this space.

In the meantime, below see David Meerman Scott interview Roxie Merritt, Director of New Media Operations at Office of  Assistant Secretary of Defence for Public Affairs, talking about this bold move.


No sooner do we get used to Web 2.0 than people are talking about Web 3.0. – the semantic web.

But will it be really be as revolutionary as some think? After all, it may still rely on pretty ancient basics, like text.  Even video and audio are pretty 20th century.  But what if you could ‘feel’ via the web, exchange sentiments, emotions across cyberspace?  Sounds mad?  Well it may be not that far away.  This is where communication and cybernetics meet.

We managed to have a chat with Professor Kevin Warwick, the world’s first cyborg, who claims that despite ideas of the ‘Terminator’ his main driver is to enhance communication way beyond the limited scope of speech or text.  He has already managed brain-to-brain signal transfer at a local level but within the next decade or two this could be much improved and, via the internet, the possibilities are staggering.

Watch the video and let your imagination run wild.