The Analysis of Criminal and Terrorist Organisations as Social Network Structures: A Quasi-Experimental Study

Abstract

The need to tackle organised crime and terrorism threats indicates, among other things, the importance of analysing efficiently and effectively the patterns of criminal ties. Social network analysis (SNA) offers conceptual frameworks, techniques and software tools to measure and visualise empirical networks of any kind. The aim of this study was to test, examine and consider the usefulness of SNA as a principal approach for the analysis and investigation of criminal and terrorist organisations. Two quasi-experiments were deployed, using a conceptual analytical framework consisting of topological, cohesive subgroups, centrality and key player measures, to see whether the application of network concepts and techniques can help law enforcement and intelligence agencies understand and derive meaning from complex and/or large data sets. The results confirmed the research hypothesis and key conclusions were drawn. It was found that SNA is a quite effective and reliable approach that gives both investigators and analysts the power to know criminal and terrorist network structures. Clearly, SNA can influence a new way of thinking and improve professional practice through the development of intelligence-led applications. The study furthers understanding regarding the use of network concepts and techniques for crime analysis and investigation, and it can be used to inform decisions about SNA programmes and technologies.

Keywords

social network analysis criminal networks terrorist networks quasi-experiments

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alderson

D. L.

(2008). Catching the ‘network science’ bug: Insight and opportunity for the operations researcher. Operations Research, 56 (5), 1047–1065.

Al Qaeda. (n.d.). Declaration of Jihad against the country's tyrants, military series. Retrieved from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/terrorism/alqaida_manual/

Anklam

(2007). Net work: A practical guide to creating and sustaining networks at work and in the world. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann/Elsevier.

Berkowitz

S. D.

(1982). An introduction to structural analysis: The network approach to social research. Toronto: Butterworth.

Bernard

R. H.

(2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bernard

R. H.

Killworth

P. D.

(1973a). On the social structure of an ocean-going research vessel and other important things. Retrieved from http://nersp.osg.ufl.edu/∼ufruss/documents/ocean%20vessel.etc.pdf

Bernard

R. H.

Killworth

P. D.

(1973b). On the structure of affective and effective sociometric relations in a closed group over time. Retrieved from http://nersp.osg.ufl.edu/∼ufruss/documents/networks%20through%20time.pdf

Bickman

Rog

D. J.

(2009). Applied research design: A practical approach. In Bickman

Rog

D. J.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of applied social research methods (2nd ed., pp. 3–43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Borgatti

(2002). NetDraw network visualization. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.

10.

Borgatti

(2006). Identifying sets of key players in a social network. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 12 (1), 21–34.

11.

Borgatti

Everett

M. G.

Freeman

L. C.

(2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.

12.

Borgatti

Foster

P. C.

(2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29 (6), 991–1013.

13.

Borgatti

Molina

J.-L.

(2003). Ethical and strategic issues in organizational social network analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39 (3), 337–349.

14.

Borgatti

Molina

J.-L.

(2005). Toward ethical guidelines for network research in organizations. Social Networks, 27 (2), 107–117.

15.

Bowling

(2009). Transnational policing: The globalization thesis, a typology and a research agenda. Policing, 3 (2), 149–160.

16.

Bryman

(2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

17.

Carley

Lee

J.-S.

Krackhardt

(2002). Destabilizing networks. Connections, 24 (3), 79–92.

18.

Cross

Borgatti

Parker

(2002). Making invisible work visible: Using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration. California Management Review, 44 (2), 25–46.

19.

Cross

Parker

(2004). The hidden power of social networks: Understanding how work really gets done in organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

20.

de Nooy

Mrvar

Batagelj

(2005). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

21.

Frankfort-Nachmias

Nachmias

(2000). Research methods in the social sciences. New York: Worth.

22.

Freeman

L. C.

(2004). The development of social network analysis: A study in the sociology of science. North Charleston, SC: BookSurge, LLC.

23.

Freeman

L. C.

(2008). Going the wrong way on a one-way street: Centrality in physics and biology. Journal of Social Structure, 9 (2).

24.

Granovetter

(1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), 1360–1380.

25.

Granovetter

(1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201–233.

26.

Hart

(1998). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: Sage.

27.

Hayden

Norman

(2008). Postgraduate dissertation handbook (pp. 1–21). Porstmouth, UK: University of Portsmouth/Institute of Criminal Justice Studies.

28.

Hayden

Shawyer

(2007). Research methods and research management. Portsmouth, UK: University of Portsmouth/Institute of Criminal Justice Studies.

29.

Kadushin

(2005). Who benefits from network analysis: Ethics of social network research. Social Networks, 27 (2), 139–153.

30.

Kenney

(2003). From Pablo to Osama: Counter-terrorism lessons from the war on drugs. Survival, 45 (3), 187–206.

31.

Kenney

(2007a). The architecture of drug trafficking: Network forms of organisation in the Colombian cocaine trade. Global Crime, 8(3), 233–259.

32.

Kenney

(2007b). From Pablo to Osama: Trafficking and terrorist networks, government bureaucracies, and competitive adaptation. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

33.

Kilduff

Tsai

(2003). Social networks and organizations. London: Sage.

34.

Kirby

(2007). The London bombers as ‘self-starters’: A case study in indigenous radicalization and the emergence of autonomous cliques. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 30 (5), 415–428.

35.

Knoke

Yang

(2008). Social network analysis (2nd ed., Vol. 154). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

36.

Mark

M. M.

Reichardt

C. S.

(2009). Quasi-experimentation. In Bickman

Rog

D. J.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of applied social research methods (2nd ed., pp. 182–213). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

37.

Morselli

(2008). Inside criminal networks (Vol. 8). Toronto: Springer.

38.

Morselli

Giguère

Petit

(2007). The efficiency/security trade-off in criminal networks. Social Networks, 29 (1), 143–153.

39.

Morselli

Petit

(2007). Law-enforcement disruption of a drug importation network. Global Crime, 8 (2), 109–130.

40.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks. (2004). The 9/11 Commission Report: Final report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. New York: Norton.

41.

Newman

M. E. J.

(2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 98 (2), 404–409.

42.

Newman

M. E. J.

(2005). A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks. Social Networks, 27 (1), 39–54.

43.

Nohria

Eccles

R. G.

(Eds.). (1992). Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

44.

Onnela

J.-P.

Saramäki

Hyvönen

Szabó

Lazer

Kaski

(2007). Structure and tie strengths in mobile communication networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 104 (18), 7332–7336.

45.

Park

H. W.

(2003). Hyperlink network analysis: A new method for the study of social structure on the web. Connections, 25 (1), 49–61.

46.

Powell

W. W.

(1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 12, 295–336.

47.

Raab

Milward

H. B.

(2003). Dark networks as problems. Journal of Public Admimistration Research and Theory, 13 (4), 413–439. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mug029

48.

Robson

(1993). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner–researchers. Oxford: Blackwell.

49.

Rogers

E. M.

(1987). Progress, problems and prospects for network research: Investigating relationships in the age of electronic communication technologies. Social Networks, 9 (4), 285–310.

50.

Saunders

Lewis

Thornhill

(2007). Research methods for business students (4th ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.

51.

Sieber

J. E.

(2009). Planning ethically responsible research. In Bickman

Rog

D. J.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of applied social science research methods (2nd ed., pp. 106–142). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

52.

Strogatz

S. H.

(2001). Exploring complex networks. Nature, 410(8 March), 268–276.

53.

Tashakkori

Teddlie

(2009). Integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. In Bickman

Rog

D. J.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of applied social research methods (2nd ed., pp. 283–317). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

54.

Teddlie

Tashakkori

(2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

55.

Wasserman

Faust

(1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

56.

Watts

D. J.

(2003). Six degrees: The science of a connected age. New York: Norton.

57.

Chen

(2005). CrimeNet Explorer: A framework for criminal network knowledge discovery. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 23 (2), 201–226.

58.

Chen

(2008). The topology of dark networks. Communications of the ACM, 51 (10), 58–65.

59.

Yin

R. K.

(2003). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.