1. Massive increase in European journals & scholars publishing on cyber conflict related topics - eg @CSP_journal , @EJIntSec, @BJPolS
2. Case studies & illustrative examples have diversified (not unrelated to previous point).
3. Less operational focus (ie. case studies of Stuxnet etc.) and more governance focus. Also fewer threat intel reports cited relative to journal articles compared to 2010-2019 period
4. More diverse group of scholars publishing on cyber conflict (& diversification of citations)
5. Greatest majority of research designs is (still) qualitative. Often not explicit – and (still) lacking clear justification cases etc.
6. Ongoing disconnect between intel and cyber studies
7. Increase use of survey experiments as preferred RD - @mgomez85, Whyte, Schandler, @JackieGSchneid etc.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you'd like to keep track of the latest scholarship in the field of cyber conflict, here's a list of all the articles published in the top 150 Poli Sci journals from Jan 2020 - Jul 2021:
@TobiasLiebetrau & Christensen, "The ontological politics of cyber security: Emerging agencies, actors, sites, and spaces" 2021 - on complex and transformative dynamics of ICT and new actors - cambridge.org/core/journals/…
Musing about the differences and similarities between paleontologists vs. threat intel – a thread with above all unanswered Qs.
1/7 In a wonderful TEDx talk palaeontologist Jack Horner asks the question: “where are all the baby dinosaurs?” "Why is there no smaller version of a Tyrannosaurus Rex in museums?"
2/7 The answer was first provided in an article published in 1975 by Prof. Peter Dodson. He revealed that dinosaurs didn’t grow like reptiles but instead grew like birds. Bird species quickly grow to 80% of their mature size before their crest starts to grow.