[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.0.47″][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”3.0.48″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.0.47″ parallax=”off” parallax_method=”on”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”3.17.6″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”]<\/p>\n
Convenor<\/strong><\/p>\n Beba Cibralic<\/strong>; bc785@georgetown.edu<\/a><\/p>\n *All times are British Summer Time (BST)<\/p>\n 3pm to 4 :30pm<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cIs Russia winning an information war against the West?\u201d \u2013 Dr. Bettina Renz<\/strong> (University of Nottingham)<\/p>\n \u201cSoftware, Soft War: Rhetoric and Information Warfare\u201d \u2013 Dr. Michael MacDonald<\/strong> (University of Waterloo)<\/p>\n \u201cVicious and Virtuous Selective Scrutiny \u201c \u2013 Jordan Myers<\/strong> (University of Pittsburgh)<\/p>\n \n In 1993, John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt published a RAND paper called \u2018Cyberwar is Coming!\u2019. In the article, Arquilla and Ronfeldt predicted \u201cnetwar\u201d, a term that means:<\/p>\n “.. trying to disrupt, damage, or modify what a target population \u201cknows\u201d or thinks about itself and the world around it. A netwar may focus on public or elite opinions, or both. It may involve public diplomacy measures, propaganda and psychological campaigns, political and cultural subversion, deception of or interference with the local media…In other words, netwar represents a new entry on the spectrum of conflict that spans economic, political, and social as well as military forms of \u201cwar\u201d. (Arquilla and Ronfeldt 1993)<\/p>\n From the quotation above, it\u2019s clear that the concept of \u201cnetwar\u201d is remarkably capacious. While the term \u201cnetwar\u201d never quite caught on, the concept of \u201cnetwar\u201d has been refashioned in a new language; today, \u201cinformation warfare\u201d is used in that same all-encompassing, far-reaching way. While the United States and NATO have not concretely defined \u201cinformation warfare\u201d, the term has become more prevalent (Wanless and Pamment 2019).<\/p>\n The category of \u201cinformation warfare\u201d merits scrutiny and should not be accepted at face value.<\/p>\n This panel seeks to explore the definition of \u201cinformation warfare\u201d, the relationship between information, influence, and state power, and the conceptual complexities that arise when we attempt to adjudicate kinds of political speech. We welcome submissions from scholars of all disciplines as well as practitioners, activists, and journalists.<\/p>\n Potential areas of discussion include, but are not limited to:<\/p>\n Submission Guidelines:<\/strong> [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Constructing \u201cInformation Warfare\u201d Convenor Beba Cibralic; bc785@georgetown.edu *All times are British Summer Time (BST) Thursday, September 9 Session Number 1: Constructing “Information Warfare” 3pm to 4 :30pm \u201cIs Russia winning an information war against the West?\u201d \u2013 Dr. Bettina Renz (University of Nottingham) \u201cSoftware, Soft War: Rhetoric and Information Warfare\u201d \u2013 Dr. Michael MacDonald (University […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3596,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"Convenor<\/strong>\r\n\r\nBeba Cibralic<\/strong> (bc785@georgetown.edu<\/a>)\r\n\r\n
\nThursday, September 9<\/h4>\n
Session Number 1: Constructing “Information Warfare”<\/em><\/h6>\n
\n
Abstracts of 300-500 words should be formatted for blind review and submitted by May 17<\/strong>, 2021<\/strong> to Beba Cibralic<\/strong> (bc785@georgetown.edu<\/a>). Please include your name, contact information,and disciplinary\/institutional affiliation in the body of your email.
Accepted presenters will be notified by May 30th, 2021<\/strong>. Please direct any questions to Beba Cibralic.<\/p>\n
\r\n\r\nIn 1993, John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt published a RAND paper called \u2018Cyberwar is Coming!\u2019. In the article, Arquilla and Ronfeldt predicted \u201cnetwar\u201d, a term that means:\r\n\r\n\".. trying to disrupt, damage, or modify what a target population \u201cknows\u201d or thinks about itself and the world around it. A netwar may focus on public or elite opinions, or both. It may involve public diplomacy measures, propaganda and psychological campaigns, political and cultural subversion, deception of or interference with the local media...In other words, netwar represents a new entry on the spectrum of conflict that spans economic, political, and social as well as military forms of \u201cwar\u201d. (Arquilla and Ronfeldt 1993)\r\n\r\nFrom the quotation above, it\u2019s clear that the concept of \u201cnetwar\u201d is remarkably capacious. While the term \u201cnetwar\u201d never quite caught on, the concept of \u201cnetwar\u201d has been refashioned in a new language; today, \u201cinformation warfare\u201d is used in that same all-encompassing, far-reaching way. While the United States and NATO have not concretely defined \u201cinformation warfare\u201d, the term has become more prevalent (Wanless and Pamment 2019).\r\n\r\nThe category of \u201cinformation warfare\u201d merits scrutiny and should not be accepted at face value.\r\n\r\nThis panel seeks to explore the definition of \u201cinformation warfare\u201d, the relationship between information, influence, and state power, and the conceptual complexities that arise when we attempt to adjudicate kinds of political speech. We welcome submissions from scholars of all disciplines as well as practitioners, activists, and journalists.\r\n\r\nPotential areas of discussion include, but are not limited to:\r\n\r\n \t