It’s Not Who You Know—It’s What You Know About People You Don’t Know That Counts

Chattoe, Edmund; Hamill, Heather

doi:10.1093/bjc/azi051

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been argued that the neglect of SNA in criminology, law enforcement, intelligence and policy research has hampered the ability to counteract organized crime and terrorism (Bruinsma and Bernasco 2004;Coles 2001;Chattoe and Hamill 2005;McIllwain 1999). Part of this neglect can be explained by the lack of experienced investigators and the specific methodology that is used to analyze networks.…”

Section: A Neglected Specialism and Its Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction to Social Network Analysis (SNA) as an investigative tool

Hulst

2008

Trends Organ Crim

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social behavior is brought about mainly through social ties and connections. Our contacts with other people shape our view of the world, reinforce our identity, and the interactions provide us with all kinds of opportunities and resources to get things done. The social capital associated with networks is also one of the primary ways facilitating crime. Therefore, the systematic analysis of criminal networks is considered a viable means to gain a more thorough understanding of criminal behavior. This paper is a general introduction to social network analysis (SNA) as an analytical tool for the study of adversary networks. The paper reviews some theoretical and key concepts, highlights functional applications, and presents a tentative protocol for data handling and coding. The discussion deals with some methodological issues, challenges and future developments in the field.

show abstract

Section: A Neglected Specialism and Its Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction to Social Network Analysis (SNA) as an investigative tool

Hulst

2008

Trends Organ Crim

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An interesting possibility may be the "testing" of a criminal network in situations where existing intelligence is not sufficient for confidence that brokerage is operating between two disparate groups within the network. The "testing" would be somewhat akin to the disruption studied by Morselli and Roy (2008-see also Chattoe and Hamill 2005). If the network were a carrier of process-for instance, information flow-salient information (correct or otherwise) could be fed through one part of the network, and intelligence gathered about whether it emerged in another, possibly disconnected, group.…”

Section: Implications For Studies Of Covert Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding individual behaviors within covert networks: the interplay of individual qualities, psychological predispositions, and network effects

Robins

2008

Trends Organ Crim

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article theorizes about how individual factors and network effects interact with each other in ways relevant to the study of networks generally, but in particular of criminal networks. In modern network analysis, careful technical descriptions that involve important graph-theory measures are entirely sensible, but they often ignore specific details about the individuals within the network. For study of a human social system, to ignore qualities of the actors is to risk an incomplete, possibly spurious, explanation, so individual-level factors may be important for a more complete understanding of the system. In covert and criminal networks, actors have motivations to keep some activities from public view, so it is impossible to understand such networks without appreciating at least that individual-level intention. This article describes five different levels of effects, both individual and relational, relevant to network-based social systems, and explains how these effects may interact. Important implications for the study of criminal networks include the formation of trust within networks, the exercise of control, and the identification of network brokers. A richer description of individual action within a complex social system will require better knowledge about how personality, social identity and other psychological factors are distinct from, and yet may interact with, self organizing network processes.

show abstract

“…It is fairly common for authors to take objection to the work of other authors at article length (Chattoe & Hamill, 2005;Coles, 2001). At the opposite extreme, some journals publish short comments or corrections regarding relatively factual or technical matters (Gardner, Alpedrinha, & West, 2012).…”

Section: A Different Kind Of Publication and Why It May Be Necessarymentioning

confidence: 99%

“Censorship”, early childhood research quarterly and qualitative research: Not so much aced out as an own goal?

Chattoe-Brown

2015

Early Childhood Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As its starting point, this article investigates claims published in Qualitative Inquiry by Ceglowski, Bacigalupa, and Peck (2011) that Early Childhood Research Quarterly censored qualitative research. Unfortunately they assert rather than demonstrate political bias against qualitative research, fail to show that its publication in Early Childhood Research Quarterly has actually declined and ignore alternate hypotheses compatible with their data. After breaking their argument into parts, I find their censorship claims completely unsupported by evidence. However, this article has two larger aims. The first is to show how mistaking hypotheses for evidence, arguing unconvincingly from quantitative data, and failing to consider alternative interpretations of evidence weaken qualitative research, lowering its credibility within social science.The second is to consider the wider academic ramifications of publishing a peerreviewed journal article that totally fails to support its claims. Based on these concerns, the article offers some practical advice to avoid the negative outcomes demonstrated by the publication of Ceglowski, Bacigalupa, and Peck and considers the scientific implications of this rebuttal to their claims having been rejected previously by Qualitative Inquiry.

show abstract

It’s Not Who You Know—It’s What You Know About People You Don’t Know That Counts

Cited by 15 publications

References 14 publications

Introduction to Social Network Analysis (SNA) as an investigative tool

Introduction to Social Network Analysis (SNA) as an investigative tool

Understanding individual behaviors within covert networks: the interplay of individual qualities, psychological predispositions, and network effects

“Censorship”, early childhood research quarterly and qualitative research: Not so much aced out as an own goal?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About