Advertisement

Trends in Organized Crime

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 278–294 | Cite as

Social network analysis as a tool for criminal intelligence: understanding its potential from the perspectives of intelligence analysts

  • Morgan Burcher
  • Chad Whelan
Article

Abstract

Over the past two decades an increasing number of researchers have applied social network analysis (SNA) to various ‘dark’ networks. This research suggests that SNA is capable of revealing significant insights into the dynamics of dark networks, particularly the identification of critical nodes, which can then be targeted by law enforcement and security agencies for disruption. However, there has so far been very little research into whether and how law enforcement agencies can actually leverage SNA in an operational environment and in particular the challenges agencies face when attempting to apply various network analysis techniques to criminal networks. This paper goes some way towards addressing these issues by drawing on qualitative interviews with criminal intelligence analysts from two Australian state law enforcement agencies. The primary contribution of this paper is to call attention to the organisational characteristics of law enforcement agencies which, we argue, can influence the capacity of criminal intelligence analysts to successfully apply SNA as much as the often citied ‘characteristics of criminal networks’.

Keywords

Social network analysis Criminal networks Criminal network characteristics Dark networks Law enforcement Law enforcement organisational characteristics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to sincerely thank Victoria Police and New South Wales Police Force for their involvement, and in particular, the analysts that gave up their time to be involved with this study. The authors would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their critical input on an earlier version of this article.

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

This study was not funded.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors – Morgan Burcher and Chad Whelan – declare that have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Arquilla J (2014) To build a network. PRism 4(1):22–33Google Scholar
  2. Athey NC, Bouchard M (2013) The BALCO scandal: the social structure of a steroid distribution network. Glob Crime 14(2–3):216–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borgatti S, Everett M, Johnson JC (2013) Analyzing social networks. SAGE Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Borgatti SP (2006) Identifying sets of key players in a social network. Comput Math Organ Theory 12(1):21–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borgatti SP, Carley KM, Krackhardt D (2006) On the robustness of centrality measures under conditions of imperfect data. Soc Networks 28(2):124–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borgatti SP, Mehra A, Brass DJ, Labianca G (2009) Network analysis in the social sciences. Science 323:892–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouchard M, Amirault J (2013) Advances in research on illicit networks. Glob Crime 14(2–3):119–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bright DA, Delaney JJ (2013) Evolution of a drug trafficking network: mapping changes in network structure and function across time. Glob Crime 14(2–3):238–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bright DA, Greenhill C, Levenkova N (2014) Dismantling criminal networks: can node attributes play a role? In: Morselli C (ed) Crime and networks. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Bright DA, Greenhill C, Reynolds M, Ritter A, Morselli C (2015a) The use of actor-level attributes and centrality measures to identify key actors: a case study of an Australian drug trafficking network. J Contemp Crim Justice 31(3):262–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bright DA, Greenhill C, Ritter A, Morselli C (2015b) Networks within networks: using multiple link types to examine network structure and identify key actors in a drug trafficking operation. Glob Crime 16(3):1–19Google Scholar
  12. Bright DA, Hughes CE, Chalmers J (2012) 'Illuminating dark networks: a social network analysis of an Australian drug trafficking syndicate', Crime. Law Soc Chang 57(2):151–176Google Scholar
  13. Brodeur J-P, Dupont B (2006) Knowledge workers or "knowledge" workers? Polic Soc 16(1):7–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burcher M, Whelan C (2015) Social network analysis and small group ‘dark’ networks: an analysis of the London bombers and the problem of ‘fuzzy’ boundaries. Glob Crime 16(2):104–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carley KM (2006) Destabilization of covert networks. Computational Math Organisation Theory 12(1):51–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Charette Y, Papachristos AV (2017) The network dynamics of co-offending careers. Social Networks. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2016.12.005
  17. Cockbain E, Brayley H, Laycock G (2011) Exploring internal child sex trafficking networks using social network analysis. Policing 5(2):144–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Décary-Hétu D, Dupont B (2012) The social network of hackers. Glob Crime 13(3):160–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duijn PAC, Kashirin V, Sloot PMA (2014) The relative ineffectiveness of criminal network disruption. Scientific Reports 4:1–15Google Scholar
  20. Duijn PAC, Klerks PPHM (2014) Social network analysis applied to criminal networks: recent developments in Dutch law enforcement. In: Masys AJ (ed) Networks and network analysis for Defence and security. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 121–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duval, RD, Christensen, K & Spahiu, A (2010), 'Bootstrapping a terrorist network', paper presented to Southern Illinois University Carbondale, <http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=pnconfs_2010>.
  22. Everton SF, Cunningham D (2012) Detecting significant changes in dark networks. Behav Sci Terror Polit Aggress 5(2):1–21Google Scholar
  23. Framis AG-S, Regadera SF (2017) Static and dynamic approaches of a drug trafficking network. In: Leclerc B, Savona EU (eds) Crime prevention in the twenty-first century: insightful approaches for crime prevention initiatives. Springer International Publishing, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  24. Guest G, MacQueen KM, Namey EE (2014) Applied thematic analysis. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  25. Helfstein S, Wright D (2011) Covert or convenient? Evolution of terror attack networks. J Confl Resolut 55(5):785–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hutchins CE, Benham-Hutchins M (2010) Hiding in plain sight: criminal network analysis. Comput Math Organ Theory 16(1):89–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson, JA & Reitzal, JD (2011), Social network analysis in an operational environment: Defining the utility of a network approach for crime analysis using the Richmond City Police Department as a case study, Coginta, retrieved 8 August 2012, <http://www.dcaf.ch/Publications/Social-network-analysis-in-an-operational-environment-Defining-the-utility-of-a-network-approach-for-crime-analysis-using-the-Richmond-City-Police-Department-as-a-case-study>.
  28. Karthika S, Bose S (2011) A comparative study of social networking approaches in identifying the covert nodes. Int J Web Serv Computing 2(3):65–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klerks P (1999) The network paradigm applied to criminal organisations: theoretical nitpicking or relevant doctrine for investigators? Recent developments in the Netherlands. Connect 24(3):53–65Google Scholar
  30. Koschade S (2006) A social network analysis of Jemaah Islamiyah: the applications to counterterrorism and intelligence. Stud Confl Terror 29(6):559–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krebs V (2002) Mapping networks of terrorist cells. Connect 24(3):43–52Google Scholar
  32. Laumann EO, Marsden PV, Prensky D (1992) Research methods in social network analysis. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  33. Malm A, Bichler G (2011) Networks of collaborating criminals: assessing the structural vulnerability of drug markets. J Res Crime Delinq 48(2):271–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Malm A, Bichler G (2013) Using friends for money: the positional importance of money-launderers in organized crime. Trends Organ Crime 16(4):365–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maxfield MG, Babbie ER (2011) Research methods for criminal Justice and criminology. Wadswroth Cengage Learning, Belmont, CAGoogle Scholar
  36. Medina RM (2014) Social network analysis: a case study of the Islamist terrorist network. Secur J 27(1):97–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Morris JF, Deckro RF (2013) SNA data difficulties with dark networks. Behav Sci Terror Polit Aggress 5(2):70–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morselli C (2009) Hells Angels in springtime. Trends in Organised Crime 12(2):145–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morselli C (2010) Assessing vulnerable and strategic positions in a criminal network. J Contemp Crim Justice 26(4):382–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Morselli C (ed) (2014) Crime and networks. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Morselli C, Petit K (2007) Law-enforcement disruption of a drug importation network. Glob Crime 8(2):109–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Morselli C, Roy J (2008) Brokerage qualifications in rigning operations. Criminology 46(1):71–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mullins S (2012a) Social network analysis and counter-terrorism: measures of centrality as an investigative tool. Behav Sci Terror Polit Aggress 5(2):115–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mullins S (2012b) Social network analysis and terrorism: an introduction to the special issue. Behav Sci Terror Polit Aggress:1–3Google Scholar
  45. Rodriguez, JA (2005), The March 11th terrorist network: In its weakness lies its strength, CiteSeer, retrieved 7 August 2012, <http://www.ub.edu/epp/wp/11m.PDF>.
  46. Sanders CB, Henderson S (2013) Police ‘empires’ and information technologies: uncovering material and organisational barriers to information sharing in Canadian police services. Polic Soc 23(2):243–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schwartz DM, Rouselle T (2009) Using social network analysis to target criminal networks. Trends Organ Crime 12(2):188–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sheptycki J (2004) Organizational pathologies in police intelligence systems: some contributions to the lexicon of intelligence-led policing. Eur J Criminol 1(3):307–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sparrow MK (1991) The application of network analysis to criminal intelligence: an assessment of the prospects. Soc Networks 13(3):251–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van der Hulst RC (2009) Introduction to social network analysis (SNA) as an investigative tool. Trends Organ Crime 12(2):101–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Victoria Police (2014), ' Victoria Police blue paper: A vision for Victoria Police 2025′, <http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=42063>.
  52. Whelan C (2012) Networks and national security: dynamics, effectiveness and organisation. Ashgate, LondonGoogle Scholar
  53. Wiil UK (2013) 'Issues for the next generation of criminal network investigation tools', paper presented to European intelligence and security informatics conference. Uppsala, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  54. Xu J, Chen H (2005) Criminal network analysis and visualization. Commun ACM 48(6):100–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Humanities and Social SciencesDeakin UniversityGeelongAustralia

Personalised recommendations