Content uploaded by Stuart Macdonald
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stuart Macdonald on Jul 16, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Cyberterrorism:
A Survey of Researchers
Five Years On
Final Report
July 2018
Cyberterrorism: A Survey of
Researchers Five Years On
page 2
About the Project
The Cyberterrorism Project is an international, interdisciplinary research network that
was established by academics working across a number of fields including Engineering,
Law and Politics in 2011. The project has four primary objectives:
1. To further understanding amongst the scientific community by engaging in original
research on the concept, threat and possible responses to terrorist uses of the
internet.
2. To facilitate global networking activities around this research theme.
3. To engage with policymakers, opinion formers, citizens and other stakeholders at all
stages of the research process, from data collection to dissemination.
4. To do the above within a multidisciplinary and pluralist context that draws on
expertise from the physical and social sciences.
Recent activities of the Cyberterrorism Project include hosting an international
Terrorism and Social Media conference in Swansea (UK), constructing a database of
international definitions of cyberterrorism and conducting a study of media
constructions of cyberterrorism. Findings from these activities have been published in
top international journals including Terrorism and Political Violence, Studies in Conflict
and Terrorism, Perspectives on Terrorism, and, Journal of Terrorism Research, and in
books including Cyberterrorism: Understanding, Assessment and Response (Springer,
2014), Terrorism Online: Politics, Law and Technology (Routledge, 2015), Violent
Extremism Online: New Perspectives on Terrorism and the Internet (Routledge, 2016)
and most recently, Terrorists' Use of the Internet: Assessment and Response (IOS Press,
2017). Further information on the project, its members, and ongoing research activities
is available via the project website: www.cyberterrorism-project.org.
For membership and media enquiries, please see the contact details on page 21.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all of the respondents for taking the time to complete the survey.
Thanks also to Kimberly Corderoy and Conor Burns for excellent research assistance.
Suggested Citation
Macdonald, S., Lavis, S. M., Jarvis, L., & Nouri, L. (2018). Cyberterrorism: A Survey of
Researchers Five Years On. Cyberterrorism Project Research Report (No. 8). Available
via: www.cyberterrorism-project.org
Cyberterrorism: A Survey of
Researchers Five Years On
page 3
About the Survey
In 2012 members of the Cyberterrorism Project conducted a survey of researchers on
cyberterrorism. A total of 118 responses were received, from researchers working in 24
countries across six continents. The findings were published in a report and series of four
journal articles, listed below, examining understandings of cyberterrorism, assessments
of the threat it poses, whether it can be perpetrated by states and the wider cyber lexicon:
Macdonald, S., Jarvis, L., Chen, T., & Lavis, S. M. (2013). Cyberterrorism: A
Survey of Researchers. Cyberterrorism Project Research Report (No. 1),
Swansea University (link).
Jarvis, L., & Macdonald, S. (2015). What is Cyberterrorism? Findings from a
Survey of Researchers. “Terrorism and Political Violence”, 27(4), 657-678. doi:
10.1080/09546553.2013.847827.
Jarvis, L., Macdonald, S. & Nouri, L. (2014). The Cyberterrorism Threat: Findings
from a Survey of Researchers. “Studies in Conflict & Terrorism”, 37(1), 68-90.
doi: 10.1080/1057610X.2014.853603.
Macdonald, S., Jarvis, L., & Nouri, L. (2015). State Cyberterrorism: A
Contradiction in Terms? Journal of Terrorism Research, 6(3), 62-75. doi:
10.15664/jtr.1162.
Jarvis, L., & Macdonald, S. (2014). Locating Cyberterrorism: How Terrorism
Researchers Use and View the Cyber Lexicon. “Perspectives on Terrorism”,
8(2), 52-65 (link).
Members of the project team also presented the findings to numerous non-academic
stakeholders, including NATO COE-DAT, UNICRI, and the European Defence Agency.
In 2017 we ran the survey again – “five years on” – to investigate how opinions had
changed (if at all): 12 questions remained the same as the 2012 survey; two questions
were reformulated; and four new questions were posed.
A total of 120 complete responses and four partial responses were received, from
researchers working in 30 countries across five continents. This report summarizes our
initial findings.
Cyberterrorism: A Survey of
Researchers Five Years On
page 4
Table of Contents
To what extent have the definitional issues around terrorism in general been satisfactorily
resolved? ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
How important is, or was, the resolution of the definitional issues around terrorism? ........................ 6
How necessary do you believe a specific definition of cyberterrorism to be? ........................................ 7
In your view, which of the following are important elements of cyberterrorism? .................................. 8
In your view, are any important elements of cyberterrorism missing from this list? ............................ 9
In which of the following scenarios do the actions of a terrorist group constitute cyberterrorism? ... 10
In your view, does cyberterrorism constitute a significant threat? If so, against whom or what is the
threat focused? ............................................................................................................................................ 11
What, in your opinion, is the cyberterrorism threat level posed by each of the following actors? ...... 12
From where in the world is cyberterrorism most likely to emerge? ......................................................... 13
Where in the world is most vulnerable to cyberterrorism? ........................................................................ 14
In your opinion, has the cyberterrorism threat level changed in the last five years? ............................ 15
With reference to your previous responses, do you consider that a cyberterrorist attack has ever
taken place? ................................................................................................................................................. 16
In your view, what are the most effective countermeasures against cyberterrorism? ......................... 17
What are the most pressing issues in the realm of cyberterrorism for policymakers? ........................ 18
What are the major limitations, gaps, or weaknesses within academic research into
cyberterrorism? ............................................................................................................................................ 19
In which country is your place of employment? .......................................................................................... 20
How would you classify your current employment? .................................................................................... 20
How would you classify your primary disciplinary background? ............................................................... 20
Cyberterrorism: A Survey of
Researchers Five Years On
page 5
To what extent have the definitional issues around terrorism in
general been satisfactorily resolved? (where 1 = not at all and 5 =
entirely)
Not at all
1
2
3
4
Entirely
5
For policymakers?
(n = 121; response rate = 97.6%)
34
33
34
17
3
For researchers?
(n = 121; response rate = 97.6%)
18
42
37
21
3
For policymakers:
25th Percentile
1
Median
2
75th Percentile
3
Mean
2.355
Std. Dev.
1.110
For researchers:
25th Percentile
2
Median
3
75th Percentile
3
Mean
2.579
Std. Dev.
1.023
2.5%
14.0%
28.1%
27.3%
28.1%
5
4
3
2
1
2.5%
17.4%
30.6%
34.7%
14.9%
5
4
3
2
1
Cyberterrorism: A Survey of
Researchers Five Years On
page 6
How important is, or was, the resolution of the definitional issues
around terrorism? (where 1 = not at all and 5 = very important)
Not at all
1
2
3
4
Very
important
5
For policymakers?
(n = 121; response rate = 97.6%)
6
12
24
38
41
For researchers?
(n = 122; response rate = 98.4%)
7
17
24
42
32
For policymakers:
25th Percentile
3
Median
4
75th Percentile
5
Mean
3.793
Std. Dev.
1.161
For researchers:
25th Percentile
3
Median
4
75th Percentile
5
Mean
3.615
Std. Dev.
1.181
33.9%
31.4%
19.8%
9.9%
5.0%
5
4
3
2
1
26.2%
34.4%
19.7%
13.9%
5.7%
5
4
3
2
1
Cyberterrorism: A Survey of
Researchers Five Years On
page 7
How necessary do you believe a specific definition of cyberterrorism
to be? (where 1 = of no use and 5 = essential)
Of no use
1
2
3
4
Essential
5
For policymakers?
(n = 121; response rate = 97.6%)
7
11
11
52
40
For researchers?
(n = 120; response rate = 96.8%)
7
11
19
41
42
For policymakers:
25th Percentile
4
Median
4
75th Percentile
5
Mean
3.884
Std. Dev.
1.142
For researchers:
25th Percentile
3
Median
4
75th Percentile
5
Mean
3.833
Std. Dev.
1.176
33.1%
43.0%
9.1%
9.1%
5.8%
5
4
3
2
1
35.0%
34.2%
15.8%
9.2%
5.8%
5
4
3
2
1
Cyberterrorism: A Survey of
Researchers Five Years On
page 8
In your view, which of the following are important elements of
cyberterrorism?
123 individuals responded to this question (response rate: 99.2%). One respondent chose not to
engage, citing an epistemological objection to the question.
A political or ideological motive
Digital means or target
Fear as an outcome
Violence against people or
property
Criminality or illegality
A theatrical or performative
aspect
Civilian targets
Conducted by a group or
organization
Non-state perpetrators
Random or indiscriminate act
23.6%
33.3%
35.8%
39.0%
41.5%
42.3%
50.4%
70.7%
82.1%
100.0%
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Cyberterrorism: A Survey of
Researchers Five Years On
page 9
In your view, are any important elements of cyberterrorism missing
from this list?
A total of 48 respondents answered here (response rate: 38.7%). Some listed more than one element.
Targets critical infrastructure: 8 respondents
Example: “Mass or targeted service disruption that threatens life or wellbeing, e.g. to water
supply, electricity, aviation, health services for political or ideological motives” (R7066)
State sponsored, supported or perpetrated: 8 respondents
Example: “Cyberterrorism, like its analogue parent, can be carried out as much by state as non-
state actors” (R7107)
Intention to coerce or compel a target audience: 4 respondents
Example: “Attack is not only directed against the actual victim(s) but against a wider target group
(audience) whom the perpetrator(s) intend(s) to coerce/intimidate” (R7064)
Other targets, e.g. government, military, economic and financial targets: 3 respondents
Example: “Targets that are non-civilian such as police, first responders and governmental
employees” (R7074)
Propagandising: 2 respondents
Example: “Propaganda that serves to radicalise, recruit or encourage violence or the threat of
violence” (R7088)
Creates doubt, insecurity or loss of confidence: 2 respondents
Example: “Other outcomes besides fear include anxiety, stress, insecurity, political polarization,
loss of confidence and dysfunction at the level of social discourse” (R7116)
Secrecy: 2 respondents
Example: “Veiled origins of attack” (R7079)
Responses from just one respondent included:
Hate (R7006)
Revenge (R7006)
Provocation (R7046)
Group identity (R7051)
Targets personal data (R7110)
Cyberterrorism: A Survey of
Researchers Five Years On
page 10
In which of the following scenarios do the actions of a terrorist group
constitute cyberterrorism (if any)?
The majority of scenarios posed were answered by all respondents (response rate: 100%); one
individual did not respond to scenario 3 (response rate for scenario 3: 99.2%).
Scenario 1: A terrorist group interferes with an air traffic control system, causing two passenger aircraft to
collide in mid-air
Constitutes cyberterrorism: 101 respondents (81.5%) Don’t know: 15 respondents (12.1%)
Does not constitute cyberterrorism: 8 respondents (6.5%)
Scenario 2: Tensions between two communities boil over, resulting in violent rioting. Several people are
killed. A terrorist group seeks to further inflame the situation. Posing as members of one of the
communities, they post gruesome images and videos on social media and issue threats against members
of the other community
Constitutes cyberterrorism: 37 respondents (29.8%) Don’t know: 11 respondents (8.9%)
Does not constitute cyberterrorism: 76 respondents (61.3%)
Scenario 3: A terrorist group remotely accesses the processing control systems of a cereal manufacturer
and changes the levels of iron supplement. As a result large numbers of children fall ill, and some die
Constitutes cyberterrorism: 100 respondents (81.3%) Don’t know: 11 respondents (8.9%)
Does not constitute cyberterrorism: 12 respondents (9.8%)
Scenario 4: A terrorist group hacks the computer system of the nation’s stock exchange, sending the
national economy into chaos and causing significant economic damage
Constitutes cyberterrorism: 95 respondents (76.6%) Don’t know: 16 respondents (12.9%)
Does not constitute cyberterrorism: 13 respondents (10.5%)
Scenario 5: A terrorist group plants a bomb in the computer control room of the nation’s stock exchange.
Although no-one is killed, the computers are destroyed, sending the national economy into chaos and
causing significant economic damage
Constitutes cyberterrorism: 36 respondents (29.0%) Don’t know: 9 respondents (7.3%)
Does not constitute cyberterrorism: 79 respondents (63.7%)
Scenario 6: A terrorist group plans to hijack a plane and crash it into a busy urban area. They buy their
flight tickets online
Constitutes cyberterrorism: 8 respondents (6.5%) Don’t know: 4 respondents (3.2%)
Does not constitute cyberterrorism: 112 respondents (90.3%)
Cyberterrorism: A Survey of
Researchers Five Years On
page 11
In your view, does cyberterrorism constitute a significant threat? If
so, against whom or what is the threat focused?
117 respondents answered the first part of this question (response rate: 94.4%).
The three “other” responses were each equivocal, in different respects:
One said it would depend on what “threat” means (R7003)
One said it would depend on what “significant” means (R7078)
The other simply said: “Depends” (R7101)
92 respondents (response rate: 74.2%) answered the second part of the question. The following were
identified as referents of the threat (some respondents listed more than one of these):
Governments/states: 28 respondents
Critical infrastructures/computer networks: 26 respondents
Civilians/individuals: 26 respondents
Organisations/private sector/economy/corporations: 19 respondents
Society/societies: 8 respondents
Anyone/everyone; anywhere/everywhere: 8 respondents
The West: 6 respondents
Groups: 3 respondents
Elections/electoral systems: 3 respondents
The United States: 3 respondents
Cultures/ethnic groups: 2 respondents
Military: 2 respondents
Yes
66.7%
A threat, but not
a significant one
7.7%
Possibly/potentially
a significant threat
6.0%
Not yet, but could
be in the future
5.1% No
12.0%
Other
2.6%
Cyberterrorism: A Survey of
Researchers Five Years On
page 12
Not applicable: 1.7%
Not applicable: 0.8%
Not applicable: 3.3%
Not applicable: 0.0%
Don't know: 3.4%
Don't know: 1.7%
Don't know: 3.3%
Don't know: 2.6%
High threat: 73.1%
High threat: 47.5%
High threat: 25.0%
High threat: 13.7%
Medium threat: 15.1%
Medium threat: 31.7%
Medium threat: 43.3%
Medium threat: 35.0%
Low threat: 5.9%
Low threat: 17.5%
Low threat: 20.0%
Low threat: 46.2%
No threat: 0.8%
No threat: 0.8%
No threat: 5.0%
No threat: 2.6%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0%
4
3
2
1
What, in your opinion, is the cyberterrorism threat level posed by
each of the following actors?
Individuals
(117 responses)
Criminal organizations
(120 responses)
Terrorist organizations
(120 responses)
States
(119 responses)
Respondents were also asked to identify any other actors not represented in the question. 59
respondents (response rate: 47.9%) answered. The following actors were identified as potential threats:
“Groups” or “networks” of individuals: 5 respondents
Hacktivists: 4 respondents
Unknown actors who cannot be identified pre-emptively: 3 respondents
Proxies operating on behalf of another target: 3 respondents
Members of business/private sector: 2 respondents
The group “Anonymous”: 2 respondents
Five other respondents did not name specific actors, commenting on the difficulty or futility of
attempting to do so given the nature of cyberterrorism.
Participation in this question varied by actor: the number of responses received is indicated in the axis.
Cyberterrorism: A Survey of
Researchers Five Years On
page 13
From where in the world is cyberterrorism most likely to emerge?
103 respondents (response rate: 83.0%) provided a response to this question. Responses were
categorized into five groups: specific locations; broad geographic regions; state-related descriptors;
party or identity-based classifications; and non-geographic or participant-specific classifications.
Specific locations:
Russia 31 (25.0%)
Israel 3 (2.4%)
Nepal 1 (0.8%)
China 16 (12.9%)
Iran 1 (0.8%)
Pakistan 1 (0.8%)
North Korea 8 (6.5%)
Korea (singular) 1 (0.8%)
Saudi Arabia 1 (0.8%)
United States 6 (4.8%)
Mongolia 1 (0.8%)
United Kingdom 1 (0.8%)
Broad geographic locations/regions
Anywhere/
everywhere 27 (21.8%)
Soviet Union or
Eastern Europe 4 (3.2%)
Africa 1 (0.8%)
The Middle East 13 (10.5%)
The West 4 (3.2%)
Europe 1 (0.8%)
Asia 4 (3.2%)
An “Arab” location 2 (1.6%)
The Maghreb region 1 (0.8%)
State-related descriptors
“States” (no further
qualification) 7 (5.7%)
“Rogue states” 2 (1.6%)
“State-related” 1 (0.8%)
“Non-state” 2 (1.6%)
“State-supported” 2 (1.6%)
“States with terrorism” 1 (0.8%)
Party or identity-based classifications
Terrorist/s 5 (4.0%)
Islam/Islamic 3 (2.4%)
Intelligence agencies 2 (1.6%)
ISIS 3 (2.4%)
Al-Qaeda 2 (1.6%)
Hackers 1 (0.8%)
Non-geographic or participant-specific classifications
“Developed” places 3 (2.4%)
The “ether” 1 (0.8%)
The Third World 1 (0.8%)
“Developing” places 3 (2.4%)
The First World 1 (0.8%)
The “Underworld” 1 (0.8%)
Places facing “conflict” 2 (1.6%)
Cyberterrorism: A Survey of
Researchers Five Years On
page 14
Where in the world is most vulnerable to cyberterrorism?
99 respondents (response rate: 79.8%) provided a response to this question. Responses were
categorized using the same framework as the previous question. However, there were no references to
actors as target, meaning the previous “party or identity-based classifications” group was unpopulated.
Specific locations:
United States 20 (16.1%)
United Kingdom 2 (1.6%)
Iran 1 (0.8%)
China 3 (2.4%)
Australia 1 (0.8%)
Namibia 1 (0.8%)
Russia 3 (2.4%)
Estonia 1 (0.8%)
North Korea 1 (0.8%)
Canada 2 (1.6%)
France 1 (0.8%)
South Korea 1 (0.8%)
Japan 2 (1.6%)
Broad geographic locations/regions
The West/Western
countries 11 (21.8%)
Western Europe 5 (4.0%)
The “Global South” 1 (0.8%)
Anywhere/
everywhere
10 (21.8%)
North America 3 (2.4%)
The Middle East 1 (0.8%)
Europe/the EU 9 (3.2%)
The “Global North” 1 (0.8%)
State-related descriptors
References to “state/s” indicating a
“positive” development status
4 (3.2%)
“States”, without further qualification 1 (0.8%)
References to “state/s” indicating a
“negative” development status
3 (2.4%)
Non-geographic or participant-specific classifications
“Developed” places 11 (8.9%)
References “cyber” 4 (3.2%)
References “networks” 3 (2.4%)
“Dependent” places 8 (6.5%)
Includes “society/ies” 4 (3.2%)
Democracies 2 (1.6%)
“Reliant” on networks 6 (4.8%)
References “technology” 4 (3.2%)
The Third World 2 (1.6%)
“Connected” places 5 (4.0%)
Includes “advanced” 3 (2.4%)
The First World 1 (0.8%)
“Developing” places 5 (4.0%)
References “economy” 3 (2.4%)
Cyberterrorism: A Survey of
Researchers Five Years On
page 15
In your opinion, has the cyberterrorism threat level changed in the
last five years?
120 respondents answered this question (response rate: 96.8%).
Decreased
0.8%
Stayed the same
14.2%
Increased
80.0%
Don't know
5.0%
Cyberterrorism: A Survey of
Researchers Five Years On
page 16
With reference to your previous responses, do you consider that a
cyberterrorist attack has ever taken place? Please explain.
116 individuals answered this question (response rate: 93.6%).
A total of 26 different incidents were identified as examples of cyberterrorism. Of these, the most
frequently cited were:
Stuxnet: 8 respondents
Attacks on Ukraine: 5 respondents
WannaCry ransomware: 5 respondents
Attacks on Estonia: 4 respondents
Interference in the 2016 US Presidential election: 3 respondents
Petya ransomware: 2 respondents
Attack on TV5Monde: 2 respondents
Those that answered “no” provided a number of explanations, including:
Cyberattacks to date have been committed by perpetrators lacking a political motive and/or the
intention to create terror: 6 respondents
Cyberattacks to date have not resulted in violence against people or property: 5 respondents
Cyberattacks to date have not been severe enough to qualify as cyberterrorism: 4 respondents
Cyberattacks to date have not been perpetrated by non-state actors: 3 respondents
Yes
64.7%
No
34.5%
Don't know
0.9%
Cyberterrorism: A Survey of
Researchers Five Years On
page 17
In your view, what are the most effective countermeasures against
cyberterrorism?
98 individuals answered this question (response rate: 79.0%). The following 24 countermeasures were
all identified by two or more respondents:
Target hardening
Training and education
Greater intelligence
Personal responsibility/vigilance
International cooperation
Redundant infrastructure/back-up
systems
Public-private partnership
Tackling the root causes of terrorism
Security management procedures
Readily available updates, patches
and software tools
Awareness-raising
International law/norms
Good cyber hygiene
More research
Greater investment in
infrastructure/expertise
Better monitoring and accountability
of digital defence systems
Offensive cyber capabilities for
deterrence
Risk management
Imposition of penalties
Collaborating with hackers
Reducing our dependence on cyber
Counter-narratives
Better information-sharing
Air-walling
Six respondents said they did not know, or were unsure, which countermeasures would be most effective. This
was primarily due to lack of relevant expertise.
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
3.1%
3.1%
3.1%
4.1%
4.1%
4.1%
4.1%
5.1%
5.1%
5.1%
6.1%
6.1%
7.1%
7.1%
18.4%
48.0%
2…
2…
2…
2…
2…
1…
1…
1…
1…
1…
1…
1…
1…
1…
1…
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Cyberterrorism: A Survey of
Researchers Five Years On
page 18
2.2%
2.2%
2.2%
2.2%
3.2%
3.2%
3.2%
4.3%
4.3%
6.5%
7.5%
7.5%
8.6%
9.7%
14.0%
19.4%
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
What are the most pressing issues in the realm of cyberterrorism for
policymakers?
93 individuals answered this question (response rate: 75.0%). The following 16 issues were all
identified by two or more respondents:
Resilience/protection of critical
infrastructure and the Internet of Things
New national and international laws,
norms and regulations
Not exaggerating or distorting the
threat
Educating the public and
policymakers
Defining cyberterrorism
Coordination and collaboration across
different jurisdictions and stakeholders
Conducting threat assessments
State activities in cyberspace
Anonymity and attribution
The human factor/individuals’ poor
security practices online
Provision of training
Responding to the threat whilst
ensuring respect for human rights
Investment
Keeping pace with technology
Developing effective protocols
Reorganising governmental
structures and defence systems
Three respondents said they did not know what are the most pressing issues facing policymakers.
Cyberterrorism: A Survey of
Researchers Five Years On
page 19
2.1%
2.1%
4.1%
5.2%
6.2%
7.2%
7.2%
9.3%
9.3%
14.4%
30.9%
1
1
1
0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
What are the major limitations, gaps, or weaknesses within
academic research into cyberterrorism?
97 individuals answered this question (response rate: 78.2%). The following 11 issues were all
identified by two or more respondents:
Access to data
Lack of definitional consensus
Fragmented/siloed research
community
Lack of financial support/resources
Need a better understanding of
whether terrorist groups plan to
commit cyberterrorism attacks (and
what might cause them to do so)
Some researchers exaggerate the
threat/the issue does not exist
Lack of cyber knowledge
Lack of collaboration with
government and/or industry
Weak theoretical or conceptual analysis/
research tends to be too descriptive
Existing research is insufficiently
practical
Lack of a focus on vulnerabilities
Six respondents said they didn’t know or weren’t sure of the most pressing issues facing researchers.
Cyberterrorism: A Survey of
Researchers Five Years On
page 20
In which country is your place of employment?
In addition to the 117 responses summarized below, 7 respondents (5.6% of total respondents) did
not answer this question.
United States 43 (34.7%)
The Netherlands 2 (1.6%)
Nigeria 1 (0.8%)
United Kingdom 21 (16.9%)
Slovenia 2 (1.6%)
Norway 1 (0.8%)
Australia 8 (6.5%)
Turkey 2 (1.6%)
Poland 1 (0.8%)
Canada 6 (4.8%)
Ukraine 2 (1.6%)
Romania 1 (0.8%)
Belgium 3 (2.4%)
Austria 1 (0.8%)
Russia 1 (0.8%)
Czech Republic 3 (2.4%)
Denmark 1 (0.8%)
South Africa 1 (0.8%)
Germany 3 (2.4%)
Greece 1 (0.8%)
Spain 1 (0.8%)
Israel 2 (1.6%)
Ireland 1 (0.8%)
Sweden 1 (0.8%)
Italy 2 (1.6%)
Kuwait 1 (0.8%)
Switzerland 1 (0.8%)
Malaysia 2 (1.6%)
New Zealand 1 (0.8%)
United Arab Emirates 1 (0.8%)
How would you classify your current employment?
Respondents gave an open-ended response to this question. In addition to the 116 responses
summarized, 8 respondents (6.5%) declined to answer.
Academic staff
89 (71.8%)
Retired 3 (2.4%)
Independent researcher
15 (12.1%)
None of the above 4 (3.2%)
Research student
5 (4.0%)
How would you classify your primary disciplinary background?
Respondents gave an open-ended response to this question. In addition to the 116 responses
summarized, 8 respondents (6.5%) declined to answer.
Group A: Political Science, International Relations, et al. 52 (46.0%)
Group B: Law, Criminology, et al. 15 (13.3%)
Group C: Economics, Business, et al. 1 (0.9%)
Group D: Engineering, Computer Science, Cyber, et al. 18 (15.9%)
Group E: Psychology, Anthropology, et al. 15 (13.3%)
Group F: Literature, Arts, History, et al. 6 (5.3%)
Participants who responded but could not be classified into these groups 6 (5.3%)