Skip to content

Tom Briggs, PhD

Improve performance. Make work better.

  • BlueSky
  • LinkedIn Profile
  • ResearchGate

About

  • Tom Briggs
  • Use of Affiliate Links

Recent Posts

  • Campbell’s Law: Why your metric will be gamed
  • Why Management Science Fails to Perform, according to Peter Drucker
  • Evicted: Matthew Desmond’s Pulitzer Prize-Winning Ethnography of Tenants, Landlords, and Eviction in an American City
  • Organization Design: “All the elements interact in a system”
  • When is a system complex?

Tags

ABM agent-based modeling bibliometrics book review books boundary spanners career cognition collaboration complexity complexity science computational modeling computational social science conference CSS data data science design of experiments ethics ethnography HR leadership long-tailed distribution management measurement Moore's Law NetLogo network science nonlinearity organizations performance psychology PTCMW quote research methods science scientometrics SNA social network analysis social networks Social Science sociology survey research systems systems thinking

Archives

  • June 2022
  • March 2021
  • August 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • July 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • March 2016
  • November 2015

Miscellaneous

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Month: May 2018

Mass Violence: A Computational Social Science Approach – presented at the Association of Threat Assessment Professionals (ATAP) DC Chapter Meeting

May 17, 2018August 12, 2018 Tom Briggscomplexity, complexity science, computational modeling, computational social science, systems, systems thinking

At the Association of Threat Assessment Professionals (ATAP) DC chapter, I had the opportunity to share my perspectives on using a computational social science / complexity science approach for the prevention/mitigation of mass violence.

The ATAP DC group convened in person in Northern Virginia and by videoconference in several other locations along the East Coast. (I’m very grateful to the technical staff at Northern Virginia Community College for all their prework to make sure the technology worked and everything ran smoothly!). The ATAP DC members were a fantastic audience and humored me for what I understand was a slightly different take on mass violence than their usual.

Following a brief overview of computational social science and complexity science, I discussed some of the challenges of researching mass violence: mass violence is rare, complex, difficult to study, lacks agreed-upon theoretical models of causation, and is unfortunately often politicized.

We discussed different types of modeling, from verbal and mental models to mathematical and computational models. I believe that computational models are particularly suited to studying mass violence, and previously constructed one such model – Active Shooter: An Agent-Based Model of Unarmed Resistance. Computational models offer many benefits for mass violence research, education, and training, including the fact that they pose no risk to human subjects, they are infinitely repeatable, they are superlative for studying processes in systems, and can incorporate network features to study the influence of network ties in a particular process or outcome.

I demonstrated several computational models, including my active shooter ABM, as well as Epstein’s civil violence model and an epidemic model showing the spread of a virus between populations. If mass violence is, at least in part, germinated through the spread of the idea of perpetrating mass violence, whether by mass media or the internet, such models are useful in exploring how quickly and broadly such ideas could spread.

Finally, I discussed my view that the cumulative strain model proposed by Levin & Madfis is a verbal model that is ripe for a computational implementation.

I concluded by sharing my view that the threat assessment/threat prevention community could make use of computational modeling for training, for research, and perhaps ultimately for pre-warning. Computational modelers have demonstrated the value of working collaboratively with process stakeholders – for example, key officials in threat planning and response in schools and organizations – to perform “participatory” or “companion” modeling, in which stakeholder input is used to iteratively refine a model such that it is useful for the stakeholders in policy development or in response planning.

Computational modeling uses for threat assessment
I see computational modeling benefiting threat assessment and management professionals in at least three areas: for training, both of threat assessors and their clients, for research, and potentially for pre-warning when models are combined with appropriate sources of data on populations.

In the discussion following my presentation, I received several excellent and thoughtful questions, including whether psychopathy could be represented in agents (yes, through an additional modeling effort), whether my prior model could be extended to include armed responders or law enforcement officers (yes), whether these models can be validated (yes, but validation is challenging for many of the same reasons that mass violence research is difficult), and whether such models can be used for pre-scenario planning (yes).

I thoroughly enjoyed my time with ATAP DC and appreciated the opportunity to contribute.

Presentation:

https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/fYVfcEDC2BdUXo

Abstract:

Mass violence is a rare event. Attempts to empirically study episodes of mass violence can present a variety of challenges. The complex nature of episodes of mass violence, which may have germinated in years prior to actual attacks, make attempts to use conventional statistical techniques problematic.

Complexity science and the relatively new field of computational social science offer new paradigms and computational tools suited to the study of this dynamic problem. This talk reviews some of the challenges of mass violence research, provides an overview of complexity and computational social science, offers a live demonstration of a computational model of an active shooter scenario, and discusses a potential use case to computationally implement the cumulative strain model proposed by Levin and Madfis in 2009.

Why is this research important? Computational approaches enable new and innovative ways of studying, thinking about, and communicating with stakeholders about mass violence, and should become part of the threat assessment community toolkit.

Mass Violence: A Computational Social Science Approach – presented at the Association of Threat Assessment Professionals (ATAP) DC Chapter Meeting
Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: Minnow by WordPress.com.
 

Loading Comments...