Hypothesis: Can the use of: live online social
networking web sites, equipped with instantaneous feedback, so as to be
interactive, with: video and/or text messaging, improve the collecting, of
both: information/intelligence, from remote areas of the world, which are too
dangerous and remote, for US HUMINTL-to access, the overall purpose being, not
just to collect intelligence information-also, to verify with documented
evidence, that, collected intelligence, meets US military veracity standards?
Introductory
Research Paper Submitted To:
American
Public University System
Department
of Intelligence and Global Security Studies
Intelligence
Officer In Training
Intl
500 Research Writing
In
Candidacy For 2nd Master’s Degree
By:
Miss.
Bayo Elizabeth Cary, AA, BA, MLIS
Online
Studies Program, From: Gainesville, Florida
January
12, 2017
Body
of Commentary:
It has been argued, that a great deal of
information, was lost due to a lack of communications, between various US
Secret Service agencies, and that, the loss of inter-office communications, is
one primary reason, why-911, happened to America:
The tragic events of 9/11
highlighted failures in communication and cooperation in the U.S. intelligence
community. Agencies within the community failed to “connect the dots” in the
intelligence they had, which was cited by the 9/11 Commission Report as a reason
for the terrorist attacks being allowed to happen. Since then, the U.S. (Chomic
2011, 95)
I would argue, that
communications, between the various US Secret Service agencies, was only one
factor-although valid, that contributed to: 911. As a response-in an attempt,
to remedy communications blocks, between US Secret Service agencies, the US government,
decided to support and encourage, the collection of “intelligence information,” from online social
networking websites (Chomic 2011, 95). Collecting “intelligence” information,
from online social networking websites, has in many ways, been, a successful
venture, for US Secret Service agencies-and in particular, for: US FBI.
I did a great deal of reading,
to arrive, at a research question, that I found to be suitable for me. I wanted
subject matter, that was not entirely foreign to me-something that I could
utilize, as a: “true experiment,” and follow-through, with, to the experimental
stages, as well. I am interested in social networking, and how social
networking relates to, both: obtaining, and the sharing, of: “intelligence
information.” Initially, I read a class text book for information, on how the
“Internet”-has, in many ways, increased the activities, of
“information/intelligence,” collected, in the form of: OSINTL (Lowenthal and
Clark 2016, 26). Further along, in my class assigned text: The 5 Disciplines
of Intelligence Collection, I came across additional information, regarding
INTL collection, and “Future Trends,” that specifically relates, to the INTL
genre of: HUMINTL-as well (Lowenthal and Clark 2016, 74).
I have already done, some introductory
evaluation, of what might be possible, in-so-far-as, sharing “intelligence
information,” online, through social networking websites. For instance: some
online social networks, like: Facebook, Fling, WordPress, and Instagram-support
online terrorist organizations, and, although located in the US, they openly
oppose: The US Constitution, and its attendant Bill of Rights. America is not a
safe country, when various members of our Secret Service branches, and popular
businesses, such as: Facebook, have no respect, or recognition, for our: US
Constitution, and The Bill of Rights, i.e.: Facebook https://www.facebook.com/checkpoint/block/
(Zuckerberg Facebook 2017).
Facebook-for instance, allows
for a great deal, of inappropriate information, and social interactions online,
such as: Swastika symbols, and live bestiality movies-however, if you complain
about your roommate assaulting you, or trying to rape you, or, you post a
personal complaint, about being tortured, and being assaulted by US
police-Facebook blocks you, from your own Facebook page. I hate Facebook.
Facebook, is such a fake online social networking website. Facebook-you are not
allowed to talk about anything meaningful, or post about anything important.
While it has been safely
established and verified, that information shared online, through social
networks, can be mined, for valuable “intelligence information,’ my research information,
has more to do, with a newer aspect, of online information sharing-live
broadcasting, and “intelligence collection.” Intelligence reporting and
collecting, by live integrated broadcasting-is a relatively new and unexplored
academic field-it includes feedback aspects, for a truly: “intelligent
interaction” (Jiang etc al. 2011, 646). One demand, of establishing an
effective research question, that needs to be answered, is locating an original
topic, that has not already been: over-investigated, and exploited.
Therefore, my original thesis
statement, is as such: How can utilizing the services of a popular social
networking website/tools, in live time, with attendant interactive feedback
capabilities, and video/text messaging-improve remote “intelligence”
collections, of valuable, and difficult to obtain-by other means: “intelligence
information.” Now that I have arrived, at a safe, and original enough research
question, my task as a researcher-is to form the guidelines, for a preliminary
experiment, and to identify, both the: “dependent,” and “independent”
variables, of the experiment.
All true experiments, must have
present, both: a “dependent and an “independent” variable (Wuensch 2004) . The
“dependent” variable, in a true experiment-is that which is observed for a:
change or reaction, whereas, the “independent” variable in an experiment, is
the variable that is actively manipulated-in an attempt to illicit, a response,
that has been predicted, by the hypothesis (Wuensch 2004). In addition, to
making an assignment, between: “dependent,” and “independent” variables, in a
standardized experiment, the experiment must also be conducted-as:
“randomized,” or, it will not qualify, to be submitted for academic review, as
a: “true experiment:”
If random
assignment is used, we call the design a randomized experiment or true
experiment. If random assignment is not used, then we have to ask a
second question: Does the design use either
multiple groups or multiple waves of measurement? If the answer is yes, we
would label it a quasi-experimental
design. If no, we would call it a non-experimental design. (Trochim 2006, “Types of Design”)
For the strict purposes,
of this particular class activity, I was instructed, to follow the guidelines
presented, for a “true experiment.”
As per guidelines presented, through
my already completed, online: CITI online ethics training modules, for working
with human subjects, I have learned, that all “true experiments,” in addition
to having a “randomized assignment procedure,” for participants-usually “double-blind,”
the experiment must begin, with a preliminary/pre-testing period. I have decided,
on a “case study” preliminary/pretest trail stage, instead of animal
experiments, because, the effects upon my human participants, will be minimal,
and mostly positive, and will have no interactivity in person. I have
identified, the exchange of personal information, that must be kept
confidential, as the highest risk factor, for: live interaction social
networking online information exchange, and intelligence collection activities.
For my proposed experiment, I have
identified, the “dependent” variable, as the: online social networking and its
pre-existing attendant programs, and on-going capabilities. I have identified,
the “independent” variable, as, the live time communications, the feedback
received during the interview, and not just the quality of the information
provided-also my ability, to verify intelligence information-through the social
networking mechanism, with supportable evidence, that the communications I am
receiving, are honest, are intended to be beneficial to me, and meet the US
military veracity standards. An example,
given in my class required reading text: The 5 Disciplines of Intelligence
Collection-describes, the cold-war era, between the US and Russia, and the
significant difficulties HUMNINTL working for the US had, in accessing and
verifying intelligence information, that was being “concealed,” in East
Germany-before, the Berlin Wall fell (Lowenthal and Clark 2016, 68).
I will endeavor, to design, the
afore mentioned experiment, and, to practice with the appropriate online social
networking tools-myself, to: “invent,” an interactive social networking
platform, with the required feedback accoutrements-that, will serve, my needed
and required purposes. I have reviewed the requirements attendant, to: constructing,
and carrying out, a: “true experiment,” and find, that my idea is:
1.
original for the purpose intended-to
expand a formal academic body of knowledge;
2.
the experiment is both: feasible and
possible-I can work with computer equipment and software online, that I already
have access to, and, a subject should be easy to locate-only 1 consent for, for
the initial-pre-trials, a: “case study,” and;
3.
the overall benefit, of the information
obtained from my experiment, will contribute positively, to the academic field,
of “intelligence studies.”
Although, it may be
presumed, that because my hypothesis is already developed, I can approach the
“true experiment,” with a deductive reasoning style-this is wholly, and
entirely incorrect. For sociological scientific “true experimental” studies,
the preferred method of reasoning, for analysis, is, “deductive reasoning:” Using
this method-deductive reasoning, one begins with a theory and hypotheses and,
then conducts research, in order to test whether the theory and hypothesis, can
be proven true with specific cases. (Deductive Reasoning) “As such, this form
of research begins at a general, abstract level, and then works its way down to
a more specific and concrete level” (Cole 2016, “Constructing A Deductive
Theory”).
Finally, for a “true experiment,” to be
considered an experiment, and not of a “quasi design,” the hypothesis must be
fallible. A hypothesis is fallible, when it is considered through the lens, of “deductive
reasoning,” and the answer to the question, is not solidly based, on a previous:
“theory,” or “empirical evidence.” Deductive reasoning, is logic, from the
general to the specific, which allows that, the specific can change. The
veracity of the hypothesis depends on the imputed general information: the
“consequent,” it must lead directly to, the specifically stated, and expected:
“consequent,” or, the hypothesis is found not to be true, or verifiable.
Following then, is a brief list, of some of the major factors-as explicated
above, that must be included, in a “true experiment,” for the research, to be:
accepted, considered, evaluated, and appreciated by, US academia, as the
results of a “true experiment”:
1)
Original Idea That Will Benefit The Field
Of Academic Of Your Specific Genere of Study;
2)
For The Field of Intelligence-Timely, That
Your Hypothesis Is Answering A Question, That Is Begging To Be Answered;
3)
There Are Enough Introductory Resources In
Your Field, To Begin To Answer The Hypothetical Question, As A Research Question,
For Background Information;
4)
You Are Easily Able To Identify and To
Divide, Between, What The Dependent And Independent Variables, Of Your
Experiment Are;
5)
You Have The Ability To Actually Conduct
The Experiment, If Your Major Professor, Or Research Department (IRB/IEC) Grant
You Permission;
6)
You Have Taken The Appropriate And
Required Training in Both: Experimental Research, And The Related Ethics;
7)
You Comprehend The Full Importance of The
Research Question-Your Hypothesis, Being Stated As A Fallible Question, That
Must Be Analyzed With Deductive Reasoning;
8)
You Have Some Realistic Understanding, Of
Some of the Challenges, and Complications-And How To Resolve Those Issues,
Related To Conducting A “True Experiment;”
9)
A Clear Understanding, That The Results of
The Experiment, Must Be Easily Repeatable-For Verification Purposes, By Another
Researcher, In The Same Academic Field, For The “True Experiment,” To Be Evaluated,
As “Empirical Evidence” And A New “Theory;”
10)
Last And Not Least, The Highest Risk For
My Above Stated Research Experiment, Is Privacy And Confidentiality, And
Therefore, Cyber Security, And The Risks of Online Activity-Must Be Considered
(Reveron 2012).
In order to complete a
“true experiment” from start to finish, the experimenter moves through several
stages: pre-trial, stage 1, stage 2, stage 3, and then sometimes, post trials.
For a “true experiment,” to be considered valid, and the hypothesis a “new
theory,” the experiment must pass all required stages of the experiment, and,
the results, must be repeatable-easily, by other experimenters, within the same
field-“verifiable:”
Large randomized
trials are required to provide reliable evidence of the typically moderate
benefit of most interventions. To be affordable, such trials need to be simple;
to be widely applicable, they need to be close to normal clinical practice. (Duley
2008, 40).
There have been some
complaints recently, about the increase in the number of guidelines, and legal
standards, which, are applied to “true experiments,” and research in general-in
the US (Duley 2008, 40.) Rules, Laws, Regulations, and Guidelines, are
necessary, and, they are intended, to keep human subjects safe. In my
opinion-although on paper, and required for research that involves human
subjects-too often, the protection laws, that are in place in the US, and
abroad, to keep research participants safe, are not adhered to, strictly
enough, and then- people, are irrevocably hurt and damaged, in unforgivable,
and unconscionable ways.
References
Antman, Karen, Arena, Joseph, Avezum,
Alvaro, Blumenthal, Mel, Bosch,
Jackie, Chrolavicius, Sue,
Duley, Lelia, Li, Timoa, Ounpuu, Stephanie Cristina
Perez, Anilia, Sleight,
Peter, Svard, Robbyna, Temple, Robert,
Tsouderous, Yannis Yunis,
Carla, and Yusuf, Salim. 2008.
“Specific Barriers To The
Conduct Of Randomized Trials.” Clinical
Trials
Sensible Guidelines Conference vol. 5: 40-48.
Chomik, Andrew. 2011. “Making Friends in
Dark Shadows: An Examination of the Use
of Social Computing
Strategy Within the United States
Intelligence Community
Since 9/11.” Global Media
Journal-Canadian Edition
vol. 4, no.
2:95-113.
Cole, Niki Lisa PhD. 2016. “Constructing A
Deductive Theory.”
About Education,
August 22, 2016. Accessed January 12, 2017.
Güntner, Georg, Horstmann, Heike, Jiang,
Jianmin, Köhler, Joachim, Löffler, Jobst, Ren,
Jinchang, Weng, Ying, Williams,
Carmen Mac, and Zaletelj, Janez. 2011. “LIVE:
An Integrated Production and
Feedback System for Intelligent and Interactive TV
Broadcasting” IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting vol.
57, no. 3.: 646-661.
Lowenthal, Mark M. and Clark, Robert M.
2016. The 5 Disciplines of Intelligence
Collection.
CQ Press, an Imprint of
Sage Publications, Inc.
Reveron, Derek S. 2012. “Cyberspace And National Security: Threats,
Opportunities, and Power in
A Virtual World.”
Georgetown University Press.
Trochim, William M.K. 2006. “Types of
Design.” Research Methods Knowledge Base,
October 20, 2006. Accessed
January 12, 2017.
Wuensch, Karl L. 2007. “Independent
Variables and Dependent Variables.”
East Carolina University, June 4, 2004. Accessed January 12, 2017.
Zuckerberg, Mark. 2017. “Facebook Illegal
Unconstitutional Block From Accessing My
Facebook Account.” Facebook.com. Accessed January 11, 2017.
No comments:
Post a Comment