Advertisement

Consciousness of Cyber Defense: Boundary Objects for Expansive Learning Through Creation of Contradictions

  • Shuyuan Mary HoEmail author
  • Diogo Oliveira
  • Raghav Rathi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11589)

Abstract

Cyber attackers gain access into systems, networks and cyberinfrastructure by escalating privileges to confidential information regardless of the efforts systems engineers put into security. The chess game between cyber offense and defense destabilizes the ability of organizations to protect their information assets. This research employs the lens of Activity Theory to study the interaction through the contradictions embedded between the cyber attackers and cyber defenders. These types of contradictions were forcefully created and simulated in the cyber security virtual lab at Florida State University for the purpose of facilitating real-world scenario-based learning experiences. Both network traffic data and interviews were collected in order to identify the boundary objects that intersect the two activity systems. Natural language processing (NLP) was adopted to explore and extract topics frequently used by both activity systems. Consciousness of cyber defense was expanded by creating contradictions, and boundary objects were identified by comparing the interactions between these two activity systems.

Keywords

Activity theory Activity system Human-computer interaction Sociotechnical systems Boundary objects Natural language processing (NLP) Cybersecurity System penetration Cloud security 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to thank Alison von Eberstein for the contribution on the interview questionnaire, consent form, and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocol approved by Florida State University Human Subjects Committee. The authors also wish to thank Christy Chatmon for the effort on interviewing participants and data collection during Spring 2017, Vanessa Myron for the effort on transcribing interviews, and Sushmita Khan for the effort on interview data analysis during Fall 2018.

References

  1. 1.
    Verizon 2018 Data breach investigations report. Verizon (2018). http://www.documentwereld.nl/files/2018/Verizon-DBIR_2018-Main_report.pdf. Accessed 5 Nov 2018
  2. 2.
    Willison, R., Warkentin, M.: Beyond deterrence: an expanded view of employee computer abuse. MIS Q. 37(1), 1–20 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ho, S.M., Hancock, J.T., Booth, C.: Ethical dilemma: deception dynamics in computer-medicated group communication. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 68(12), 2729–2742 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ho, S.M., et al.: Demystifying insider threat: language-action cues in group dynamics. In: Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-49). IEEE, Kauai (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ho, S.M., Kaarst-Brown, M., Benbasat, I.: Trustworthiness attribution: inquiry into insider threat detection. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 69(2), 271–280 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ho, S.M.: Leader member exchange: an interactive framework to uncover a deceptive insider as revealed by human sensors. In: Proceedings of the 2019 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-52). Shidler College of Business, Maui (2019)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vance, A., Lowry, P.B., Eggett, D.: Using accountability to reduce access policy violations in information systems. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 29(4), 263–290 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nardi, B.: Studying context: a comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. In: Nardi, B. (ed.) Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 69–102. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ho, S.M., von Eberstein, A., Chatmon, C.: Expansive learning in cyber defense: transformation of organizational information security culture. In: Proceedings of the 12th Annual Symposium on Information Assurance (ASIA 2017), pp. 23–28. Academic Track of the 20th Annual NYS Cyber Security Conference, Albany (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Engeström, Y.: Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. J. Educ. Work 14(1), 133–156 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leont’ev, A.N.: The problem of activity in psychology. Soviet Psychol. 13(2), 4–33 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vygotsky, L.: Interaction between learning and development. In: Gauvain, M., Cole, M. (eds.) Readings on the Development of Children, pp. 34–40. Scientific American Books, New York (1978)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miettinen, R., Paavola, S.: Reconceptualizing object construction: the dynamics of Building Information Modelling in construction design. Inf. Syst. J. 28(3), 516–531 (2018). Special Issue: Combined Special issues on Activity Theory and Global Sourcing and Development: New Drivers, Models and ImpactsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karanasios, S.: Toward a unified view of technology and activity: the contribution of activity theory to information systems research. Inf. Technol. People 31(1), 134–155 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Engeström, Y.: Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research, 2nd edn, p. 338. Cambridge University Press, New York (1987)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karanasios, S., Allen, D.: Activity theory in information systems research. Inf. Syst. J. 28(3), 439–441 (2018). Special Issue: Combined Special issues on Activity Theory and Global Sourcing and Development: New Drivers, Models and ImpactsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Russell, D.: Rethinking genre in school and society: an activity theory analysis. Writ. Commun. 14(4), 504–554 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Russell, D.: Activity theory and its implications for writing instruction. In: Petraglia, J. (ed.) Reconceiving Writing, Rethinking Writing Instruction, pp. 51–78. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jonassen, D.H., Ronrer-Murphy, L.: Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. (ETR&D) 47(1), 61–79 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miettinen, R.: The riddle of things: activity theory and actor-network theory as approaches to studying innovations. Mind Cult. Act. 6(3), 170–195 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Virkkunen, J., Kuutti, K.: Understanding organizational learning by focusing on “activity systems”. Acc. Manag. Inf. Technol. 10(4), 291–319 (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jarzabkowski, P.: Strategic practices: an activity theory perspective on continuity and change. J. Manag. Stud. 40(1), 23–55 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jarzabkowski, P., Wolf, C.: An activity theory approach to strategy as practice. In: Golsorkhi, D., et al. (eds.) Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice, pp. 165–183. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2015)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Allen, D., et al.: How should technology-mediated organizational change be explained? A comparison of the contributions of critical realism and activity theory. MIS Q. 37(3), 835–854 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karanasios, S.: Framing ICT4D research using activity theory: a match between the ICT4D field and theory? Inf. Technol. Int. Dev. 10(2), 1–17 (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Foot, K.A.: Cultural-historical activity theory: exploring a theory to inform practice and research. J. Hum. Behav. Soc. Environ. 24(3), 329–347 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Roth, W.-M.: Emotion at work: a contribution to third-generation cultural-historical activity theory. Mind Cult. Act. 14(1–2), 40–63 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dennehy, D., Conboy, K.: Going with the flow: an activity theory analysis of flow techniques in software development. J. Syst. Softw. 133, 160–173 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kuutti, K.: Activity theory and its applications to information systems research and development. In: Nissen, H.E., Klein, H.K., Hirschheim, R. (eds.) Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, pp. 529–549. Elsevier North-Holland, Inc., Amsterdam (1991)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kuutti, K.: Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In: Nardi, B.A. (ed.) Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction, MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kuutti, K.: Activity theory, transformation of work, and information systems design. In: Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., Punamäki-Gitai, R.-L. (eds.) Perspectives on Activity Theory, pp. 1–360. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kuutti, K., Arvonen, T.: Identifying potential CSCW applications by means of activity theory concepts: a case example. In: Proceedings of the 1992 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 1992). ACM, Toronto (1992)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nardi, B.: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. In: Nardi, B. (ed.) Context and Consciousness, pp. 7–16. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Suchman, L.A.: Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Machine Communication, p. 203. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kaptelinin, V., Nardi, B.A., Macaulay, C.: Methods & tools: the activity checklist: a tool for representing the “space” of context. In: Interactions 1999, pp. 27–39. ACM, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Engeström, Y., Sannino, A.: Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organizational change efforts. J. Organ. Change Manag. 24(3), 368–387 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kaptelinin, V.: The object of activity: making sense of the sense-maker. Mind Cult. Act. 12(1), 4–18 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Star, S.L., Griesemer, J.R.: Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Soc. Stud. Sci. 19(3), 387–420 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Star, S.L.: This is not a boundary object: reflections on the origin of a concept. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 35(5), 601–617 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Star, S.L.: The structure of ill-structured solutions: boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In: Distributed Artificial Intelligence, pp. 37–54. Elsevier (1989)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shuyuan Mary Ho
    • 1
    Email author
  • Diogo Oliveira
    • 1
  • Raghav Rathi
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Communication and Information, School of InformationFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations