Welcome to the InfoSci Platform
Reference Hub1
Understanding Actors in Complex Security Problems

Understanding Actors in Complex Security Problems

Duarte Gonçalves
Copyright: © 2018 |Volume: 9 |Issue: 2 |Pages: 18
ISSN: 1947-8569|EISSN: 1947-8577|EISBN13: 9781522544197|DOI: 10.4018/IJSDS.2018040101
Cite Article Cite Article

MLA

Gonçalves, Duarte. "Understanding Actors in Complex Security Problems." IJSDS vol.9, no.2 2018: pp.1-18. http://doi.org/10.4018/IJSDS.2018040101

APA

Gonçalves, D. (2018). Understanding Actors in Complex Security Problems. International Journal of Strategic Decision Sciences (IJSDS), 9(2), 1-18. http://doi.org/10.4018/IJSDS.2018040101

Chicago

Gonçalves, Duarte. "Understanding Actors in Complex Security Problems," International Journal of Strategic Decision Sciences (IJSDS) 9, no.2: 1-18. http://doi.org/10.4018/IJSDS.2018040101

Export Reference

Mendeley
Favorite Full-Issue Download

Abstract

This article arose while working on the rhino poaching problem in South Africa and having to deal with the large number of stakeholders and complexity. The purpose of actor modelling is to develop a deeper understanding of how stakeholders and threats contribute to the complex security problems. This article is the author's reflection on two different attempts at modelling actors in the rhino problem. A framework is developed and a number of issues are raised with respect to actor modelling: First, values and perspectives are driven by actor needs. The knowledge acquired by actors is determined by perspectives. With a diversity of actors, there is a “fragmentation of perspective” that hampers addressing the problem. Thus, dealing with fragmentation of perspective, requires an approach that is inclusive of actors and different ways of knowing. The validity of actor modelling is limited by what can be determined about the values and interests of actors and this varies across actors. Second, actors have multiple identifications with multiple levels of relationality. For high levels of identification combined with low levels of relationality, there is a challenge for a researcher to understand actor behaviour. Third, actors operate in an autonomy-heteronomy space. This is not a continuum, but both autonomy and heteronomy experienced at the same time. When actors are autonomous they live out their values and interests and are most creative. When creativity is applied, there are many ways (what) of satisfying interests and living out values (why), but actors do not behave randomly. Under autonomy, understanding motivation (why) is more important than what because why is more stable and what cannot be predicted. Actors are dynamic, non-deterministic and non-linear. Fourth, the model represents not only structure but also motivation or purpose and resources; thus, addressing certain aspects of subjective and objective fragmentation. Based on the argument advanced in the paper, the sources of actor complexity leading to novel emerging behaviour in social systems are actor needs and the corresponding values and perspectives, high levels of identification with low levels of relationality and autonomy.

Request Access

You do not own this content. Please login to recommend this title to your institution's librarian or purchase it from the IGI Global bookstore.