Prospects for Lone Wolf and SIMAD terrorism

Gordon, Theodore J.; Sharan, Yair; Florescu, Elizabeth

doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2015.01.013

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some individuals are incorrectly classified as Lone Actor terrorists when in fact their attacks were “violent acts by stand-alone individuals that were carried out for reasons of personal motivation or simply with criminal intent” ( Spaaij, 2011 , p. 11). In addition, there is no consensus on the types of behavior exhibited by Lone Actors: Definitions range from “violent and nonviolent behaviors” ( Corner & Gill, 2015 ), such as “behaviors that facilitated or encouraged violent actions carried out by others” ( Gill, Horgan, & Deckert, 2014 ), to “the threat or use of violence” ( Bakker & de Roy van Zuijdewijn, 2015 ) and, in some studies, also include cyber-attacks ( Gordon, Sharan, & Florescu, 2015 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

European Lone Actor Terrorists Versus “Common” Homicide Offenders: An Empirical Analysis

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term “Lone Actor” has been applied to a variety of violent individuals who are thought to act out of ideological motivations using terrorist tactics. So far, much of the research is U.S.-based. There is an empirical vacuum of Lone Actor violence in Europe and a conceptual gap in how these acts may be understood as a variation of homicidal behavior. We examine and compare characteristics of European Lone Actors to European “common” homicide offenders. Lone Actor terrorists constitute a heterogeneous group that is similar to homicide offenders but differs in terms of substance use, weapon use, and target. These findings may be understood in the context of instrumental versus expressive aims.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

European Lone Actor Terrorists Versus “Common” Homicide Offenders: An Empirical Analysis

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With , Gordon et al (2015), Creange and Careyron (2013) and Gordon and Pease (2006). Six of these last studies with a single round mention explicitly that they used a RTD Figure 3.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In their study about expectations of destructive activities by solitary individuals, Gordon et al (2015) used a confidence level measurement of the answers given by the expert as follows: very high, high, medium, low and very low. They annexed a graph of percentage of responses based on the level of confidence, and they used questions in the form of matrices.…”

Section: Possibility Of Measuring Degree Of Expertise In Experts or Stakeholdermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…. (2017),Jiang et al (2017),Zulean et al (2017),Wagner et al (2016),,Engelke et al (2015),Gordon et al (2015), Gary and Von der Gracht (2015) andGordon and Pease (2006) Real-time spatial Delphi 1 Di Zio et al (2017) Policy Delphi 2 Loë et al (2016) and Makkonen et al (2016) Group Delphi 1 Webler et al (1991) and citado por Bloem da Silveira Junior et al (2018). Market Delphi 1 Cui et al (2004) and citados por Li et al…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Delphi method: analysis of rounds, stakeholder and statistical indicators

Sossa

Halal

Zarta

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this study is to review the literature on the Delphi method, its characteristics and current applications through an analysis of recent most-cited scientific papers, with an emphasis on three axes, namely, the number of rounds used, stakeholder participation relevance or only academic experts’ participation and the possibility of using indicators or techniques different from those related to descriptive statistics. Design/methodology/approach In total, 57 papers were initially reviewed, 10 of them with a high citation rate. Then, an analysis was made of papers in Scopus for the period 2015-2018 published in the Technological Forecasting and Social Change Journal and in the Futures and Foresight Journal, which had the characteristic of displaying quartile Q1 or Q2 in Scimago in addition to being in Scopus. Findings Among the main results, the authors observe the tendency to use fewer rounds, a higher prevalence of stakeholder participation and not only academic experts but also the use of new types of modified Delphi such as real-time spatial Delphi, Delphi group, market Delphi, real-world Delphi and policy Delphi. Originality/value Among the conclusions, the possibility of using other indicators or complementary techniques to the descriptive statistics is highlighted such as number of justifications or comments between rounds, coefficients to quantify the competence or degree of expertise of the participants, measures of the perception of the expert on the usefulness of the presented feedback, graphs of the number of arguments according to the number of questions, the Wilcoxon Ranked Pairs Test, the k means, Kolmogorov–Simonov test and the Mann–Whitney U-test.

show abstract

“…We customized a web-program developed as part of prior research [ 34 , 38 ] for our project’s Real-Time Delphi survey. It comprised five main pages, one per substance.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Prevalence and Negative Impacts of Substance Use Disorders among People with HIV in the United States: A Real-Time Delphi Survey of Key Stakeholders

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although HIV and substance use disorders (SUDs) constitute a health syndemic, no research to date has examined the perceived negative impacts of different SUDs for people with HIV (PWH). In May 2019, 643 stakeholders in the U.S., representing clients of AIDS service organizations (ASOs), ASO staff, and HIV/AIDS Planning Council members, participated in an innovative Stakeholder-Engaged Real-Time Delphi (SE-RTD) survey focused on the prevalence and individual-level negative impact of five SUDs for PWH. The SE-RTD method has advantages over conventional survey methods by efficiently sharing information, thereby reducing the likelihood that between-group differences are simply due to lack of information, knowledge, and/or understanding. The population-level negative impacts were calculated by weighting each SUD’s individual-level negative impact on indicators of the HIV Care Continuum and other important areas of life by the perceived prevalence of each SUD. Overall, we found these SUDs to have the greatest population-level negative impact scores (possible range 0–24): alcohol use disorder (population-level negative impact = 6.9; perceived prevalence = 41.9%), methamphetamine use disorder (population-level negative impact = 6.5; perceived prevalence = 3.2%), and opioid use disorder (population-level negative impact = 6.4; perceived prevalence = 34.6%). Beyond further demonstration of the need to better integrate SUD services within HIV settings, our findings may help inform how finite funding is allocated for addressing the HIV-SUD syndemic within the U.S. Based on our findings, such future efforts should prioritize the integration of evidence-based treatments that help address use disorders for alcohol, methamphetamine, and opioids.

show abstract

Prospects for Lone Wolf and SIMAD terrorism

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

European Lone Actor Terrorists Versus “Common” Homicide Offenders: An Empirical Analysis

European Lone Actor Terrorists Versus “Common” Homicide Offenders: An Empirical Analysis

Delphi method: analysis of rounds, stakeholder and statistical indicators

The Prevalence and Negative Impacts of Substance Use Disorders among People with HIV in the United States: A Real-Time Delphi Survey of Key Stakeholders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About