Appendix B
Summary of the Committee’s Information Gathering
The purpose of a decadal survey is to gather ideas from researchers and the community interested in the subject of the study that can be used to support future research initiatives. Following on the successful approach used in previous decadal surveys of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, this committee used a number of mechanisms to solicit input from relevant communities. Its efforts included public meetings, calls for white papers, public workshops, and other forums for gathering research ideas.
PUBLIC MEETINGS
Prior to the nomination of the decadal survey committee, a separate steering committee was appointed to plan and carry out a Summit on Social and Behavioral Sciences for National Security. The purposes of this summit, held October 4–5, 2016, in Washington, D.C., were to explore issues likely to be relevant and encourage members of the social and behavioral sciences (SBS) community to participate in the survey process.1 The summit brought together academics, members of the Intelligence Community (IC), and representatives from the government to explore cutting-edge SBS research, the relevance of such work to intelligence analysis, and future directions for research. Presenters described relevant trends in their disciplines (e.g., brain research and neuroscience; the study of social interaction, behavioral
___________________
1 Proceedings of the Summit can be found at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/24710/social-and-behavioral-sciences-for-national-security-proceedings-of-a [June 2019].
genetics, and risk and decision making). Representatives from the IC discussed objectives for the decadal survey and highlighted recurring issues and long-term strategic challenges (see Box B-1 for a list of presentations/speakers). In addition to the steering committee and staff, there were 130 in-person attendees and 226 webcast viewers from across the United States and Canada. The product of this summit provided valuable background as the committee was formed and began its work.
The decadal survey committee also invited researchers and members of the IC to make public presentations at two of its six meetings.2 One panel included scholars in linguistics, political psychology, and political science. The second panel included representatives of federal research programs supporting SBS research for national security purposes who discussed accomplishments and objectives of such programs. Both sessions were accessible to in-person attendees (33, including speakers) and via webcast (98 individuals from across the United States and Argentina). See Box B-2 for a list of presenters.
WHITE PAPERS
The committee issued two separate calls for white papers. The first, open from November 2016 to February 2017, sought information on the needs and challenges facing the IC that might relate to SBS research. This call sought input from SBS academics and researchers with IC experience and/or knowledge to provide insights into the IC’s needs and challenges. Authors were asked to address the following questions: (1) What are some of the key challenges, questions, and needs facing the IC regarding social and behavioral developments (see below)? (2) What makes these challenges and questions important at this time and in the foreseeable future? and (3) What are the anticipated national security benefits from addressing these challenges and questions? The committee received 36 papers in response to this first call. Table B-1 lists the papers; all white papers received are available on the study website at http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BBCSS/DBASSE_175673 [June 2019].
___________________
2 See the study website for meeting agendas, speaker biographies, and select presentations at http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BBCSS/DBASSE_177475 [June 2019].
The second call for white papers, open May to June 2017, focused on possibilities in SBS research (concepts, methods, tools, techniques, and new ideas that could advance knowledge) for addressing analytic challenges and needs. This call sought input from researchers across a broad range of SBS fields, beyond those normally associated with national security and international relations. Authors were asked to identify recent advances and accomplishments in SBS research or consider new lines of investigation and to highlight possibilities for advancing fundamental knowledge in an SBS research domain. The committee received 62 papers in response to this second call; see Table B-2.
TABLE B-1 First Call White Papers
Principal Author and Institution | Paper (title) |
---|---|
Amir Kamel, King’s College London | Economics and Security: The Ignored Relationship |
Anna Duran, Avatar Research Institute | The Case for Sociocultural Situational Analysis in Intelligence Assessments |
Dana Perkins, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) | Mitigating Insider Threats through Strengthening Organizations’ Culture of Biosafety, Biosecurity, and Responsible Conduct |
David Broniatowski, George Washington University (GWU) | Combating Misinformation and Disinformation Online: The Battle of the Narrative |
David Delaney, University of Maryland (UMd) | Behavioral Public Choice and National Security Decision Making |
Elizabeth O’Hare, Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) | Using Industrial-Organizational Psychology to Strengthen the National Security Workforce |
Francisco Parra-Luna, Universidad Complutense de Madrid | Could We Speak of a “Social Sin” of Political Science?: A Critical Look from the Systemic Perspective |
Herman Aguinis, GWU, School of Business | Early Identification of Outstanding Performers |
Jason Spitaletta, Johns Hopkins University-Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU-APL) | The Role of Test and Evaluation in Intelligence Community Sponsored Social and Behavioral Science Research |
Jennifer Webster, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory | Mathematical Lacks in Network Analysis |
John Hoven | Business Schools: Context-Specific Social Science for an Operational Purpose |
John Hummel, Argonne National Laboratory | Challenges in Incorporating Social and Behavioral Aspects into Intelligence Community Assessments |
Joseph Dien, UMd, College Park | Cognitive Augmentation for Coping with Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) Overload |
Josiah Dykstra, National Security Agency (NSA) | Cyber Issues Related to Social and Behavioral Sciences for National Security |
Kent Myers, Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) | Government Workshop on Decadal Questions |
Kent Myers, ODNI | A Security Community Challenge: System Effects |
Principal Author and Institution | Paper (title) |
---|---|
Kent Myers, ODNI | Social and Behavioral Science for National Security: A Government Workshop held at the National Academy of Sciences, January 31, 2017 |
Kent Myers, ODNI | Social Science Research Needed to Help the IC Identify and Counter Deception-Related Threats |
Leah Windsor, University of Memphis | The Predictive Potential of Political Discourse |
Lucien Randazzese, SRI International | Social, Behavioral, and Economic Influences in Security Decision Making: Lessons from Early Work in Cybersecurity |
Mark Wilson, North Carolina State University | Development of Key Variance Visualizations of Analytic Workflow for the Support of Data-Based Discussions |
Mica Endsley, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society | HFES Comments on Social and Behavioral Sciences for National Security |
Michael Fundator, Rutgers University | Combining Academic and Intelligence Knowledge and Methods in Finding Optimal Strategy for Health Policy and Cyber Security |
Michael Lissack, American Society for Cybernetics (ASC) | The Role of UnCritically Examined Presuppositions (UCEP’s) in SBS |
Michael Lissack, ASC | We Need SBS to Embrace Its Subjectivity Not Hide It |
Michael Mousseau, University of Central Florida (UCF) | The Promise of Economic Norms Theory |
Morris Bosin | Proposed Threat Assessment and Mitigation Framework |
Philip Sagan, Sagan Consulting, LLC | Multi-Disciplinary Studies of Probability Perception Contribute to Engineering and Exploiting Predictive Analytic Technologies |
Robert Knisely | The Need for a Discipline of Program Design, Between Those of Public Policy (“What needs to change?”) and Public Administration (“How did that work?”) |
Stuart Umpleby, GWU | Two Systems of Ethical Cognition |
Stuart Umpleby, GWU | Reconsidering Cybernetics |
Stuart Umpleby, GWU | Action Research |
Principal Author and Institution | Paper (title) |
---|---|
Teodora Ivanuša, University of Maribor | Systemic Behavior via Social Responsibility: A Way Toward a More Holistic, Reliable, and Efficient Intelligence and Counterintelligence |
Theodore J. Gordon, Millennium Project | New Analysis Tools for Pre-Detecting Terrorist Intent |
Tom Pike, US Army/George Mason University (GMU) | The Foreign Population Analytic Framework |
Vladimir Krylov, State Educational Institution of Higher Education of the Republic of Crimea “Crimean Engineering and Pedagogical University” (GBOUVO RK “CEPU”) | RUSSIAN WORLD: Qualitative Analysis in PARADIGM Object-Oriented Design |
TABLE B-2 Second Call White Papers
Principal Author and Institution | Paper (title) |
---|---|
Aleksandra Bielska, VALCRI Project | The Psychology of Intelligence Analysis: Where Are We and Where Should We Be? |
Andrew Peterson, GMU | Developing Ethical, Legal, and Policy Analyses Relevant to the Use of Machine Learning Algorithms in National Security |
Ashley Richter | Towards Ubiquitous Sensing: Staking Out the Best Paths to and Through the Upcoming 3D Data Avalanche |
Aude Oliva, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) | The Cognitive Envelope |
Bear Braumoeller, The Ohio State University (OSU) | International Order and Armed Conflict |
Bear Braumoeller, OSU | Statistical Methods for Evidence-Based National Security Policy |
Brad Allenby, Arizona State University (ASU) | White Paper on Weaponized Narrative |
Cameron MacKenzie, Iowa State University | Better Models for National Security Strategic Decision Making |
Can Uslay, Rutgers University | Security and Paton Satisfaction: Issues and Recommendations |
Principal Author and Institution | Paper (title) |
---|---|
Colin Phillips, UMd | An Integrated Approach to Language Capabilities in Humans and Technology |
Curtis Rasmussen, Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Office of Cyber and Infrastructure Analysis | Intellectual Styles as a Predictor of Intelligence Analyst Job Performance |
David Berube, NCSU | The State of the Social Science of Nanoscience |
Diane Maye, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University | Artificial Intelligence in Shaping Preferences and Countering the Radicalization Process |
Fred Roberts, Rutgers University | Big Data, Social and Behavioral Sciences, and National Security |
Fritz Allhoff, University of Alaska, Anchorage | The New Arctic: National and Indigenous Security, Infrastructure, and Climate Change |
Gary Berntson, OSU | Predicting Violent Behavior: Collectively vs. Individually |
Giuseppe Labianca, University of Kentucky | The Political Independence Index: Ranking Actors’ Power in Signed Social Network Graphs |
Irene Wu, Georgetown University (GU) | Measuring Soft Power with Conventional and Unconventional Data |
James Giordano, GU Medical Center | Development and Employment of Neurocognitive Science in Intelligence Operations |
Jason Spitaletta, JHU-APL | The Need for Intelligence Community Sponsored Influence Research |
Jennifer Lerner, Harvard University | Improving National Security through Research on Emotion and Decision Making |
Joel Kulesza, Los Alamos National Laboratory | Standardization of Color Palettes for Scientific Visualization |
Jonathan Herrmann, National Intelligence University (NIU) | Resilience against the Weaponized Narrative and Disinformation |
Jonathan Victor, Weill Cornell Medical College | A response to the Decadal Survey of Social and Behavioral Sciences and Applications to National Security |
Joseph Fargnoli, RITRE Corporation | The Root Causes of National Security and the Opportunities for the Application of the Principle of the Oneness of Humanity in a New Framework of Action |
Principal Author and Institution | Paper (title) |
---|---|
J.B. Spencer, J.A. Kulesza, and A. Sood, Los Alamos National Laboratory | 3D Geometry Visualization Capability for MCNP |
Judi See, Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia) | First Principles Analogs for the Behavioral Sciences |
Judi See, Sandia | Multimedia Instructional Resources for Nonpractitioners |
Judi See, Sandia | Developing a Predictive Model for Vigilance Performance |
Julie Mendosa, National Intelligence University and DEA | Transnational Organized Crime: An Evolving OCEA Challenge |
Laura Steckman, The MITRE Corporation | Cultural and Linguistic Influences on Sociotechnical Space: Some General Challenges and Opportunities |
Laura Steckman, The MITRE Corporation | Combining Narratology and Psychology to Examine Multinational Cultural Motivators, Expression, and Perceptions |
Leah Windsor, University of Memphis | Language, Nonverbal, and Audiovisual Cues: Multimodal Approaches to Understanding Political Behavior |
Lisa Pearl, University of California | Large-Scale Sophisticated Linguistic Monitoring |
Mark Frankel, International Neuroethics Society | Response to the National Academy of Sciences Decadal Survey of Social and Behavioral Sciences for Applications to National Security Nine Areas of Neuroethical Importance |
Michael Franz, Loyola University, Maryland | Analyzing the Mindset of Religiously Inspired Terrorists |
Michael Fundator, Rutgers University | Impact of Behavioral and Social Sciences on Medical and Intelligence Studies |
Michael Maxwell, University of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language (UMd-CASL) | The Role of Test and Evaluation in Social and Behavioral Sciences |
Michael Tennison | White Paper adapted from Security Threats Versus Aggregated Truths: Ethical Issues in the Use of Neuroscience and Neurotechnology for National Security |
Olusegun Owotomo, University of Texas at Austin | Opioid Epidemic and Homeland Security: An Integrative Framework of Intricacies and Proposed Solutions |
Principal Author and Institution | Paper (title) |
---|---|
Paul Kantor, Rutgers University | A Program for Better Human Computer Collaboration to Counter Terrorism |
Petra Bradley, UMd-CASL | A National Research Agenda on Insider Threat |
Polinpapilinho Katina, Old Dominion University | Complex System Governance: Implications and Research Directions |
R. Bowen Loftin, University of Missouri | Increasing the Analyst’s Bandwidth for Perception and Understanding of Large, Multivariate Collections of Data |
Reeshad Dalal, GMU | Enhancing Decision Making by Cybersecurity Employees |
Richard Cincotta, Stimson Center | Assessing Political Demography’s Potential Application to Foreign Policy, Defense, and Intelligence Analyses |
Robert Horn, Stanford University | Information Murals for Intelligence Analysis |
Robert Hubal, University of North Carolina | Professional Social Competency Identification, Assessment, and Training |
Robert West, DePauw University | A Social Cognitive Neuroscience Approach to Information Security |
Robin Gregory, Decision Research | Decision Making to Prevent Genocide: National Security vs. Saving Lives? |
Ronald Rensink, University of British Columbia | Applying Vision Science to Improve Data Visualization |
Shann Turnbull, International Institute for Self-governance | Assessing Risk and Resilience in Governance |
Stephen Cimbala, Pennsylvania State University, Brandywine | Nuclear Crisis Management in the Information Age |
Stephen Marrin, James Madison University | Intelligence Studies, Intelligence Analysis, and Multidisciplinary Learning |
Susan Aaronson, GWU | The Silent Erosion of Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining (FACB) and Its Implications for Social, Political, and Economic Instability |
Valerie Hudson, Texas A&M University | Women and National Security; Kin Groups, Environments, and Security |
Vincent Alcazar | Needed: A Framework to Succeed the OODA Loop |
Vladimir Krylov, CEPU | The Inauguration of Donald Trump Ended the Epoch of Submissional Leaders |
Vladimir Krylov, CEPU | Donald Trump Is America’s Response to the Challenge of History |
Principal Author and Institution | Paper (title) |
---|---|
Wendy Chambers, UMd-CASL | Predicting Terrorist Attacks by Automating Integrative Complexity |
William Shelby, Purdue University | Considerations for the Study of Combat-Capable Robots |
Zlatan Krizan, Iowa State University | Identifying How Sleep Shapes Human Intelligence Gathering and Diagnosticity |
PUBLIC WORKSHOPS
Building on the insights gained through the public discussions and white papers, the committee identified a range of issues and questions for further exploration. Separate steering committees, which each included members of the parent committee and outside experts, were appointed to plan six 1-day public workshops to explore some of these issues. Experts were invited to make presentations, answer questions, and engage in discussion with members of the committee and external participants (academics, members of the IC, and government representatives). The topics for these workshops were
- Changing sociocultural dynamics and implications for national security
- Emerging trends and methods in international security
- Leveraging advances in social network thinking for national security
- Learning from the science of cognition and perception for decision making
- Workforce development and intelligence analysis
- Understanding narratives for national security purposes
The first three workshops were held concurrently on October 11, 2017; 78 in-person registrants and 251 webcast viewers from the United States, Canada, Sweden, and the United Kingdom participated. Box B-3 provides an overview of these three workshops. The second three workshops were held concurrently on January 24, 2017; 111 in-person attendees and 230 webcast viewers from the United States, the United Kingdom, Brazil, The Netherlands, Mexico, and Canada participated. Box B-4 provides an overview of these three workshops. Documents describing the proceedings of all six workshops can be found at http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BBCSS/SBS_for_National_Security-Decadal_Survey/index.htm [June 2019].
TOWN HALLS
Another mechanism used in past decadal studies to engage scientists and gather input is participation in town halls, forums usually held in conjunction with meetings of professional societies. Because of the exceptionally broad range of academic disciplines with potential relevance to this study, the committee had to balance the possible benefits of such meetings against the risk of hearing more from some disciplines than others because resources were limited. The committee held a roundtable December 11, 2017, at the Society for Risk Analysis in Arlington, Virginia, but also elected to host a 6-month virtual town hall through which ideas could be sought from across disciplines.
The committee used the online platform IdeaBuzz to host its virtual town hall. IdeaBuzz allowed users to submit information via short summaries of their ideas in response to the committee’s questions and criteria. Contributors could enter a few sentences or attach a white paper describing their ideas in greater detail. Alternatively, contributors could vote for ideas and/or comment on other ideas.
The SBS Decadal Survey IdeaBuzz Challenge website was open for public input from October 2017 to March 2018. The IdeaBuzz Challenge announcement was distributed to 95 academic associations and universities, publicized via Twitter, and shared through six National Academy of Sciences (NAS) member section liaisons and various Boards within NAS (see list below). At the beginning of the Challenge, seven white papers from our first and second calls for white papers were uploaded to the platform
to encourage comments. In addition to comments and votes, the committee received seven original submissions (see Table B-3).3
To elicit input from the scientific community, the study staff and committee reached out to a number of professional organizations, university departments, NAS section liaisons, and other electronic databases. Although it is difficult to know the exact number of individuals reached, we estimate roughly that our requests were sent to more than 10,000 researchers across our outreach groups. We asked the following groups to help distribute notices for our second call for white papers and IdeaBuzz Challenge:
- professional organizations in the SBSSBS: 41;
- NAS section liaisons: 6;
- deans of schools of SBSSBS (Consortium of Social Science Association’s members, contacted by Bill Maurer, dean of the School of Social Sciences, University of California, Irvine): 54;
- Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education listserv: 3,130 individuals;
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine social media feed: 53,000 individuals; and
- SBS Decadal Survey listserv.
___________________
3 An archive of the committee’s challenge is available at https://ideabuzz.com/a/buzz/nasembbcss/sbsdecadalsurvey [February 2019].
TABLE B-3 Ideas Received from IdeaBuzz Challenge
Author/Institution | Idea Title |
---|---|
University of Miami Miller School of Medicine | Supports for Immigrant Families and Adolescent Rebellion |
Adrian James | The Isolationism/Interactivity Continuum: Vehicle for Assessing Barriers to Intelligence Sharing |
Arne Norlander, Norlander Science and Engineering Consulting (NORSECON) | Human-Systems Integration in Cognitive Theatre of Operations |
Bruce Crawford | A Quick Peek Under the Hood: National Security Research Needs |
Christopher Soren and Shann Turnbull, International Institute of Self-Governance | Research How to Define, Evaluate, and Create Sound Governance |
Gavrill Michas | Remarks Following January Workshop |
Lisa Miller, University of California, Davis | Science Literacy |
Michael Ramirez | Change Tactics |
Michael Snelgrove, Former USAF Intelligence Officer | There’s a Person on the Other Side of This Chat |
Valerie Hudson | Women and National Security |
Vladimir Krylov | On the National Security Criteria for a Post-Monetary Society |