Social network analysis and small group ‘dark’ networks: an analysis of the London bombers and the problem of ‘fuzzy’ boundaries

Abstract

Social network analysis (SNA) is believed to be capable of revealing significant insights into crime and terror groups, including identifying important individuals and unique approaches to disruption. However, SNA has a number of theoretical and practical limitations, particularly when applied to ‘dark’ networks. While most analysts certainly acknowledge at least some of these limitations, we need to know more about their potential impact in a crime intelligence context. This article aims to go some way towards that end by placing greater scrutiny on the problem of ‘fuzzy boundaries’ when applied to small group networks. SNA is applied to the groups responsible for the 7 July 2005 London bombings and the 21 July 2005 attempted London bombings. The article concludes that while SNA is a valuable tool for understanding crime and terror groups, the age-old problem of fuzzy boundaries can have a profound impact on the analysis of small dynamic networks.

Keywords:

• social network analysis
• dark networks
• fuzzy boundaries
• small groups
• intelligence analysis
• London bombings

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their thorough and constructive comments on an earlier version of this article.

Notes

1. Borgatti et al., Analyzing Social Networks.

2. Ibid.

3. Wasserman and Faust, Social Network Analysis.

4. Bruinsma and Bernasco, “Criminal Groups”; Gilmour, “Understanding Organized Crime”; Koschade, “A Social Network Analysis”; Krebs, “Mapping Networks”; McIllwain, “Organized Crime”; Perliger and Pedahzur, “Social Network Analysis”; and Ressler, “Social Network Analysis.”

5. Azad and Gupta, “A Quantitative Assessment”; Bright et al., “Illuminating Dark Networks”; Cockbain et al., “Exploring Internal Child”; Koschade, “A Social Network Analysis”; and Perliger and Pedahzur, “Social Network Analysis.”

6. Borgatti et al., “On the Robustness”; Mullins, “Social Network Analysis”; Tsvetovat and Carley, “Bouncing Back”; Morris and Deckro, “SNA Data Difficulties”; and Xu and Chen, “The Topology of Dark.”

7. Milward and Raab, “Dark Networks as Organizational”; Raab and Milward, “Dark Networks as Problems.”

8. Mullins, “Stopping Terrorism”; Soule, “Problems in Applying Counterterrorism.”

9. Arquilla and Ronfeldt, “Network Revisited”; Whelan, Networks and National Security.

10. Arquilla, “To Build a Network”.

11. Bright et al., “Illuminating Dark Networks”; Kenney, “The Architecture of Drug”; and Natarajan, “Understanding the Structure.”

12. Sparrow, “The Application of Network.”

13. Krebs, “Mapping Networks.”

14. Arquilla and Ronfeldt, Networks and Netwars.

15. Azad and Gupta, “A Quantitative Assessment”; Koschade, “A Social Network Analysis”; Mainas, “The Analysis of Criminal”; Malm et al., “Social Network and Distance”; Medina, “Social Network Analysis”; Morselli, “Paths for Criminal Network”; Natarajan, “Understanding the Structure”; Qin et al., “Analyzing Terrorist Networks”; Rodriquez, “The March 11th Terrorist”; and “Sageman, Understanding Terror Networks.”

16. Bright et al., “Illuminating Dark Networks”; Malm and Bichler, “Networks of Collaborating Criminals”; Malm et al., “Social Network and Distance”; Morselli, “Assessing Vulnerable and Strategic”; Morselli and Giguere, “Legitimate Strengths in Criminal”; Morselli et al., “The Efficiency/Security Trade-off”; and Natarajan, “Understanding the Structure.”

17. Morselli and Giguere, “Legitimate Strengths in Criminal”; Morselli et al., “The Efficiency/Security Trade-off”; and Morselli, “Assessing Vulnerable and Strategic.”

18. Bichler and Malm, “Small Arms, Big Guns”; Decary-Hetu and Dupont, “The Social Network of”; Holt, “Exploring the Social Organisation”; and Yip, “An Investigation into Chinese.”

19. Koschade, “A Social Network Analysis”; Rodriquez, “The March 11th Terrorist”; Azad and Gupta, “A Quantitative Assessment”; and Leuprecht and Hall, “Networks as Strategic Repertoires.”

20. Qin et al., “Analyzing Terrorist Networks.”

21. Jordan, “Predicting Target Selection.”

22. Carley, “Destabilization of Covert Networks”; Klerks, “The Network Paradigm”; Koschade, “A Social Network Analysis”; Mac Ginty, “Social Network Analysis”; Malm and Bichler, “Networks of Collaborating Criminals”; Memon and Larsen, “Practical Algorithms for Destabilizing”; Morselli, “Paths for Criminal Network Distribution”; and Schwartz and Rouselle, “Using Social Network Analysis.”

23. Bright et al., “Illuminating Dark Networks”; Morselli, “Assessing Vulnerable and Strategic.”

24. Degree centrality is a measure of how many connections an actor has with other individuals in the network while betweenness centrality is a measure of the shortest path between two other individuals (see Borgatti et al., Analyzing Social Networks); Koschade, “A Social Network Analysis”; Malm and Bichler, “Networks of Collaborating Criminals”; and Morselli, “Assessing Vulnerable and Strategic.”

25. Arquilla, Worst Enemy; Everton, Disrupting Dark Networks; Roberts and Everton, “Strategies for Combating.”

26. Morris and Deckro, “SNA Data Difficulties”; Xu and Chen, “The Topology of Dark.”

27. Morris and Deckro, “SNA Data Difficulties.”

28. Laumann et al., Research Methods in Social.

29. See note 12 above.

30. See note 28 above.

31. Holt, “Exploring the Social Organisation”; Johnson and Reitzal, “Social Network Analysis”; and Krebs, “Mapping Networks.”

32. McGloin and Kirk, “An Overview of Social.”

33. See note 28 above.

34. Krebs, “Mapping Networks”; Koschade, “A Social Network Analysis”; Rodriquez, “The March 11th Terrorist”; and Azad and Gupta, “A Quantitative Assessment.”

35. Coles, “It’s Not What You”; Johnson and Reitzal, “Social Network Analysis”; Klerks, “The Network Paradigm”; Koschade, “A Social Network Analysis”; Krebs, “Mapping Networks”; Malm and Bichler, “Networks of Collaborating Criminals”; Malm et al., “Social Network and Distance”; McGloin and Kirk, “An Overview of Social”; Morselli and Roy, “Brokerage Qualifications”; Perliger and Pedahzur, “Social Network Analysis”; Rodriquez, “The March 11th Terrorist”; Sparrow, “The Application of Network”; van der Hulst, “Introduction to Social Network”; and Xu and Chen, “Criminal Network Analysis.”

36. Borgatti et al., “On the Robustness”; Laumann et al., Research Methods in Social; and Xu and Chen, “The Topology of Dark.”

37. Borgatti et al., “On the Robustness.”

38. Degree centrality is a measure of how many connections an actor has with other individuals in the network; betweenness centrality is a measure of the shortest path between two other individuals; closeness centrality describes how close an individual is to others in the network; and eigenvector determines which actors are well connected to other individuals who themselves are well connected (see Borgatti et al., Analyzing Social Networks).

39. See note 37 above.

40. See note 1 above.

41. See note 37 above.

42. Xu and Chen, “The Topology of Dark.”

43. Borgatti et al., “On the Robustness”; Xu and Chen, “The Topology of Dark.”

44. Azad and Gupta, “A Quantitative Assessment”; Koschade, “A Social Network Analysis”; Krebs, “Mapping Networks.”

45. Mullins, “Social Network Analysis”; Perliger and Pedahzur, “Social Network Analysis.”

46. Robertson et al., “Documents Give New Details.”

47. Azad and Gupta, “A Quantitative Assessment”; Koschade, “A Social Network Analysis”; Krebs, “Mapping Networks”; and Rodriquez, “The March 11th Terrorist.”

48. It should be noted that the authors attempted to include other actors, such as those who may have assisted the 21 July bombers after their failed attack, but unfortunately insufficient relational data was available.

49. Azad and Gupta, “A Quantitative Assessment”; Koschade, “A Social Network Analysis”; Krebs, “Mapping Networks”; and Rodriquez, “The March 11th Terrorist.”

50. Borgatti et al., “UCINET for Windows.”

51. See note 1 above.

52. Borgatti et al., Analyzing Social Networks; Carrington et al., Model and Methods; Wasserman and Faust, Social Network Analysis; Azad and Gupta, “A Quantitative Assessment”; Carley et al., “Toward an Interoperable Dynamic”; Hutchins and Benham-Hutchins, “Hiding in Plain Sight”; Malm et al., “Comparing the Ties”; Natarajan, “Understanding the Structure”; and Rodriquez, “The March 11th Terrorist.”

53. Hutchins and Benham-Hutchins, “Hiding in Plain Sight.”

54. Azad and Gupta, “A Quantitative Assessment.”

55. Hutchins and Benham-Hutchins, “Hiding in Plain Sight.”

56. Bright et al., “Illuminating Dark Networks”; Koschade, “A Social Network Analysis”; Krebs, “Mapping Networks”; Malm and Bichler, “Networks of Collaborating Criminals”; Moreslli, “Hells Angels in Springtime”; and Morselli, “Assessing Vulnerable and Strategic.”

57. Hallet, “Coroner’s Inquests.”

58. House of Commons, “Report of the Official”; Robertson et al., “Documents Give New Details.”

59. See note 46 above.

60. Ibid.

61. Ibid.

62. House of Commons, “Report of the Official.”

63. See note 46 above.

64. See note 62 above.

65. Lefkowitz, “The July 21.”

66. BBC, “21/7 Accused made Frantic.”

67. See note 46 above.

68. Ibid.

69. Ibid.

70. See note 65 above.

71. The Guardian, “The July 21 Failed.”

72. Ibid.

73. See note 27 above.

74. Laumann et al., Research Methods in Social; Azad and Gupta, “A Quantitative Assessment”; Koschade, “A Social Network Analysis”; Krebs, “Mapping Networks”; and Rodriquez, “The March 11th Terrorist.”

75. Krebs, “Mapping Networks”; Rodriquez, “The March 11th Terrorist.”

76. See note 71 above.

77. See note 50 above.

78. Krebs, “Mapping Networks”; Rodriquez, “The March 11th Terrorist”; and Morselli, “Assessing Vulnerable and Strategic.”

79. Koschade, “A Social Network Analysis.”

80. Moreslli, “Hells Angels in Springtime.”

81. Koschade, “A Social Network Analysis”; Krebs, “Mapping Networks”; and Rodriquez, “The March 11th Terrorist.”

82. See note 12 above.

83. Borgatti et al., “On the Robustness”; Xu and Chen, “The Topology of Dark.”

84. Bichler and Malm, “Small Arms, Big Guns”; Bright and Delany, “Evolution of a Drug.”

85. Johnson and Reitzal, “Social Network Analysis.”

86. Roberts and Everton, “Strategies for Combating.”

87. Klerks, “The Network Paradigm.”

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Morgan Burcher

Morgan Burcher is PhD candidate at Deakin University, Australia. His thesis is exploring the use of social network analysis by Australian law enforcement agencies. His research interests include social network analysis, law enforcement, security intelligence, crime intelligence, crime and terror networks, and crime prevention.

Chad Whelan

Chad Whelan is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Deakin University (Australia). His research interests include multidisciplinary approaches to networks, involving organisation theory, public administration and management, particularly in relation to managing complex security problems. He is the author of Networks and National Security: Dynamics, Effectiveness and Organisation (Ashgate, 2012).