Influence Indicators

Conclusions and Recommendations

Influence occurs at various levels and through various means, which makes it very difficult to monitor and measure, let alone predict. Yet, analysis of influence is a requirement for:

  • assessment of the characteristics of influence environments and the potential for influence to occur, like individual and social vulnerabilities to malign influence activities (such as interference in public discourse via disinformation in mass and social media affecting sovereign, democratic processes), and
  • planning, monitoring and evaluation of influence activities, including counter-disinformation campaigns, public affairs activities, and other informational and promotional activities seeking to inform, advise, and legitimately persuade publics.

The report notes some underlying related principles of understanding influence. These are expansively addressed in the companion report; they are worth emphasising here.

First, influence occurs as a co-creative process of meaning making between those that seek to influence (through words, images, sounds, actions) and those – the audiences, the publics, the societies, both as individuals and in groups, networks and communities – that interpret and act on (or not) their interpretation of influence attempts.

Second, analysis should be aligned closely with identified goals. Whether the aim is to promote influence, or prevent influence, these aims are the measuring stick used to assess outcomes.

Assessing influence faces difficulties which can be generalised in two categories:

  • data: firstly, what counts as data indicating influence potential, or influence effects; secondly, how can this data be sourced in ways that are reliably representative of actual conditions and events; and
  • analysis: how can this data be analysed to reasonably assess influence characteristics, monitor influence activities, and evaluate influence effects.

Further challenges arise out of two competing aims: (1) to develop an approach that can be consistently, if not uniformly, applied in a type of ‘standardised model’; and (2) to develop a bespoke methodology that utilises the available data and meets the specific needs of an assessor, planner or evaluator of influence threats and activities.

This report seeks to walk that fine line between generalisability and specificity, in three ways. First, it outlines a range of available tools, techniques and approaches that can be applied. These include existing social and political databases, standardised psychological tests, and research methods that are commonly used (such as surveys, content analysis, and network analysis).

Second, it presents a series of accepted analytical frameworks used to interpret and understand the data. These are categorised as being micro, meso, or macro and are primarily drawn from the fields of social psychology, sociology, political science, and international relations.

Third, the report promotes a generalisable framework for incorporating data and analysis, based on:

(1) the integration of various forms of data, based on what is available, appropriate (reliable and representative) and applicable;

(2) the structuring of analyses around key characteristics that are consistent, for example the typical stages of an information influence campaign based on standard strategic communications practices and – importantly – focussed on assessment against outlined goals as well as being mindful of unintended effects; and

(3) adoption of a modest ‘middle-range theory’ approach which avoids over both generalisation and over specificity. 65

Recommendations

Policy and Planning

The recommendations in this report can inform planning, evaluation and assessment policies in general by incorporating the key principles outlined above regarding (1) audience focus and (2) goal orientation. Additionally, these principles can be the basis for a more widely and consistently applicable approach to information influence analysis across the whole of government and the whole of society.

For planning processes, the report offers options and recommendations regarding the means to assess information environments, monitor information activities, and evaluate information effects. These can be used to develop new or adapt existing planning processes.

Practitioners

Practitioners can draw on this report to develop or add new and additional means of assessing influence environments and actions. The indicators toolbox provides a basic set of methodologies that can be applied to meet operational requirements, within the limits of operational constraints.

Researchers

Influence researchers will find in this report directions for further investigation and experimentation. There is considerable scope for development of specific tools, based on the varieties of data available, for use in computational analysis of large structured and unstructured data sets.

Additionally and importantly, the range of theoretical and conceptual approaches discussed in this report provide directions for developing means of situating qualitative data analysis within conceptual frameworks that offer further and deeper explanatory (perhaps predictive) potential, thus making data analysis more meaningful.