Beyond Dark and Bright: Towards a More Holistic Understanding of Inter-Group Networks

Abstract

Networks are becoming a popular organizational form for structuring human activities. To date, scholars have addressed networks in a variety of fields, including sociology, economics, public administration, criminology, political science, and international security. However, little has been done so far to systematically examine the similarities, differences, and connections between network forms of organization across different academic disciplines. This has important implications for both theory and practice. The lack of attention paid to organizational similarities and differences prevents the exchange of knowledge developed across fields. In turn, policy-makers cannot take full advantage of existing research, and may miss opportunities to improve the work of some networks and combat that of others. To address this gap in the literature, this paper uses the combination of organizational environments and organizational goals to develop a new typology of inter-group networks, and thus improve our understanding of how human behaviour is coordinated through networks.

Everyday peace: Bottom-up and local agency in conflict-affected societies

“…Simultaneously, however, everyday peace activities can be conflict provoking, especially if in-group members find cross-community contact threatening. Everyday peace involves unwritten and constantly evolving systems of governance that apply to inter- and intragroup relations (Hejnova, 2010: 743). The practices and norms of everyday peace lie at the intersection of these shifting systems of governance, with individuals striking an uneasy balance between the allegiances and norms of the in-group and contacts with the out-group.…”

Terrorism and Social Movements; Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, 2nd Edition

“…This evolution challenged the ideal-typical separation between ideologically driven terrorist organizations and "greed" driven rebel groups, as conceptualized in the literature on economic motivations for civil war (e.g., Collier and Hoeffler 1998;Metz 2012;Snow 1996). Terrorism researchers treated criminal activity as purely profit driven and non-ideological (Cilluffo 2000;Hejnova 2010). Consequently, ideologically-driven organizations' decisions to participate in crime presented a paradox for research attempting to distinguish terrorist organizations from other types of covert and illegal groups (for a review, see .…”

When Terrorists Go Bad: Analyzing Terrorist Organizations’ Involvement in Drug Smuggling

“…As Vargas () points out, many scholars understand terrorists that have turned to selling drugs as having sold out their ideals (Laqueur ; US Army and Marine Corps ). They conceptualize organized crime as an inherently nonideological, profit driven enterprise (Cilluffo ; Hejnova ). Why, then, would terrorist organizations—supposedly motivated by a need to right an injustice or redress a grievance (Abadinsky )—engage in morally proscribed activity?…”