Relativity Approach to the Strategic Cyber Conflict Management in Businesses

Öz

Purpose: The study aims to form a theoretical basis for the development of strategies needed by businesses and establish strategic principles. The starting point of this research is that cyber conflict is an operational, managerial, relational, and strategic problem of businesses rather than a cross-country administrative problem. Design/methodology/approach: This research was carried out by adopting grounded theory, known as theorizing-based theory. The study was carried out with 593 limited liability and joint-stock companies operating in Turkey. Findings: The research results revealed a new theory named "relativity of strategic cyber conflict management". According to the research findings, the five orbital forces (negotiation, managerial, infrastructure, defense, competition) were determined in cyber conflict management. Four principles were determined as a business within the system (location in space), the business within cyber cosmos (relativity of time), warping spacetime due to cyber conflict (Curvature of strategy), and illusions due to cyber conflict (Gravitational lenses). Originality: This study introduces a new theory of the cyber conflict management with the inspiration of the principles of relativity theory.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cyber conflict
• management
• strategy
• relativity theory
• grounded theory

Kaynakça

1. Akoto, W. (2021). International trade and cyber conflict: Decomposing the effect of trade on state-sponsored cyber attacks. Journal of Peace Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343320964549
2. Alhayani, B., Mohammed, H. J., Chaloob, I. Z., & Ahmed, J. S. (2021). Effectiveness of artificial intelligence techniques against cyber security risks apply of IT industry. Materials Today: Proceedings.
3. Andrijcic, E., & Horowitz, B. (2006). A macro‐economic framework for evaluation of cyber security risks related to protection of intellectual property. Risk analysis, 26(4), 907-923.
4. Applegate, S. D., & Stavrou, A. (2013). Towards a cyber conflict taxonomy. In 2013 5th International Conference on Cyber Conflict (CYCON 2013) (pp. 1-18). IEEE.
5. Barrett, M., Davidson, E., Prabhu, J., & Vargo, S. L. (2015). Service innovation in the digital age. MIS quarterly, 39(1), 135-154.
6. Barrinha, A., & Renard, T. (2017). Cyber-diplomacy: the making of an international society in the digital age. Global Affairs, 3(4-5), 353-364.
7. Bobo, L. (1983). Whites' opposition to busing: Symbolic racism or realistic group conflict?. journal of personality and social psychology, 45(6), 1196.
8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health, 13(2), 201-216.

9. Brief, A. P., Umphress, E. E., Dietz, J., Burrows, J. W., Butz, R. M., & Scholten, L. (2005). Community matters: Realistic group conflict theory and the impact of diversity. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 830-844.
10. Broadhurst, R. (2006). Developments in the global law enforcement of cyber‐crime. Policing: An International Journal, 29(3), 408-433.https://doi.org/10.1108/13639510610684674
11. Bryant, A. (2017). Grounded theory and grounded theorizing: Pragmatism in research practice. Oxford University Press.
12. Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2007). The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Sage.
13. Butler, A. E., Copnell, B., & Hall, H. (2018). The development of theoretical sampling in practice. Collegian, 25(5), 561-566.
14. Campbell, T. A., & Ivanova, O. S. (2013). 3D printing of multifunctional nanocomposites. Nano Today, 8(2), 119-120.
15. Caridi, M., Moretto, A., Perego, A., & Tumino, A. (2014). The benefits of supply chain visibility: A value assessment model. International Journal of Production Economics, 151, 1-19.
16. Carmigniani, J., Furht, B., Anisetti, M., Ceravolo, P., Damiani, E., & Ivkovic, M. (2011). Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications. Multimedia tools and applications, 51(1), 341-377.
17. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage.
18. Charmaz, K. (2017). Special invited paper: Continuities, contradictions, and critical inquiry in grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1-8.
19. Conlon, C., Timonen, V., Elliott-O’Dare, C., O’Keeffe, S., & Foley, G. (2020). Confused about theoretical sampling? Engaging theoretical sampling in diverse grounded theory studies. Qualitative Health Research, 30(6), 947-959.
20. Danyk, Y., Maliarchuk, T., & Briggs, C. (2017). Hybrid war: High-tech, information and cyber conflicts. Connections, 16(2), 5-24.
21. Denning, D. E. (2014). Framework and principles for active cyber defense. Computers & Security, 40, 108-113.
22. Dipert, R. R. (2010). The ethics of cyberwarfare. Journal of Military Ethics, 9(4), 384-410.
23. Draucker, C. B., Martsolf, D. S., Ross, R., & Rusk, T. B. (2007). Theoretical sampling and category development in grounded theory. Qualitative health research, 17(8), 1137-1148.
24. Emig, C., Brandt, F., Kreuzer, S., & Abeck, S. (2007). Identity as a service–towards a service-oriented identity management architecture. In Meeting of the European Network of Universities and Companies in Information and Communication Engineering (pp. 1-8). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
25. Gandhi, R., Sharma, A., Mahoney, W., Sousan, W., Zhu, Q., & Laplante, P. (2011). Dimensions of cyber-attacks: Cultural, social, economic, and political. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 30(1), 28-38.
26. Gayer, C. C., Landman, S., Halperin, E., & Bar-Tal, D. (2009). Overcoming psychological barriers to peaceful conflict resolution: The role of arguments about losses. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 53(6), 951-975.
27. Gompert, D. C., & Libicki, M. (2014). Cyber warfare and Sino-American crisis instability. Survival, 56(4), 7-22.
28. Heckman, K. E., Walsh, M. J., Stech, F. J., O'boyle, T. A., DiCato, S. R., & Herber, A. F. (2013). Active cyber defense with denial and deception: A cyber-wargame experiment. computers & security, 37, 72-77.
29. Ishii, K. (2010). Conflict management in online relationships. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(4), 365-370.
30. Junio, T. J. (2013). How probable is cyber war? Bringing IR theory back in to the cyber conflict debate. Journal of Strategic Studies, 36(1), 125-133.
31. Karatzogianni, A. (2008). Cyber-conflict and global politics. Routledge.
32. Kato, S., Takeuchi, E., Ishiguro, Y., Ninomiya, Y., Takeda, K., & Hamada, T. (2015). An open approach to autonomous vehicles. IEEE Micro, 35(6), 60-68.
33. Kendall, J. (1999). Axial coding and the grounded theory controversy. Western journal of nursing research, 21(6), 743-757.
34. Lee, J., Ardakani, H. D., Yang, S., & Bagheri, B. (2015). Industrial big data analytics and cyber-physical systems for future maintenance & service innovation. Procedia cirp, 38, 3-7.
35. Li, X., Jiang, P., Chen, T., Luo, X., & Wen, Q. (2020). A survey on the security of blockchain systems. Future Generation Computer Systems, 107, 841-853.
36. Li, X., Liang, X., Lu, R., Shen, X., Lin, X., & Zhu, H. (2012). Securing smart grid: cyber attacks, countermeasures, and challenges. IEEE Communications Magazine, 50(8), 38-45.
37. Li, R., Zhao, Z., Zhou, X., Ding, G., Chen, Y., Wang, Z., & Zhang, H. (2017). Intelligent 5G: When cellular networks meet artificial intelligence. IEEE Wireless communications, 24(5), 175-183.
38. Lin, H. (2012). Escalation dynamics and conflict termination in cyberspace. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 6(3), 46-70.
39. Lu, W., Xu, S., & Yi, X. (2013). Optimizing active cyber defense. In International Conference on Decision and Game Theory for Security (pp. 206-225). Springer, Cham.
40. Monostori, L. (2014). Cyber-physical production systems: Roots, expectations and R&D challenges. Procedia Cirp, 17, 9-13.
41. Nelson, L. K. (2020). Computational grounded theory: A methodological framework. Sociological Methods & Research, 49(1), 3-42.
42. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method Implementation Research. Administration and policy in mental health, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
43. Radanliev, P., De Roure, D. C., Nicolescu, R., Huth, M., Montalvo, R. M., Cannady, S., & Burnap, P. (2018). Future developments in cyber risk assessment for the internet of things. Computers in industry, 102, 14-22.
44. Rand, E. J. (2013). Queer critical rhetoric bites back. Western Journal of Communication, 77(5), 533-537.
45. Robinson, O. C. (2014). Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: A theoretical and practical guide. Qualitative research in psychology, 11(1), 25-41. Rush, F. (2004). Critical Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
46. Shackelford, S. J. (2014). Managing cyber attacks in international law, business, and relations: In search of cyber peace. Cambridge University Press.
47. Sharma, S. K., Telfer, M., Phua, S. T., & Chandler, H. (2012). A pragmatic method for estimating greenhouse gas emissions from leakage for Improved Forest Management projects under the Verified Carbon Standard. Greenhouse Gas Measurement and Management, 2(1), 22-32.
48. Shi, L., Jia, C., Lü, S., & Liu, Z. (2007). Port and address hopping for active cyber-defense. In Pacific-Asia Workshop on Intelligence and Security Informatics (pp. 295-300). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
49. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Sage.
50. Taillat, S. (2019). Disrupt and restraint: The evolution of cyber conflict and the implications for collective security. Contemporary Security Policy, 40(3), 368-381. Walker, D., & Myrick, F. (2006). Grounded theory: An exploration of process and procedure. Qualitative health research, 16(4), 547-559.
51. Xu, S., Lu, W., & Li, H. (2015). A stochastic model of active cyber defense dynamics. Internet Mathematics, 11(1), 23-61.
52. Valeriano, B., & Maness, R. C. (2014). The dynamics of cyber conflict between rival antagonists, 2001–11. Journal of Peace Research, 51(3), 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343313518940
53. Vollstedt, M., & Rezat, S. (2019). An introduction to grounded theory with a special focus on axial coding and the coding paradigm. Compendium for early career researchers in mathematics education, 13, 81-100.
54. Zollo, L., Roccella, S., Guglielmelli, E., Carrozza, M. C., & Dario, P. (2007). Biomechatronic design and control of an anthropomorphic artificial hand for prosthetic and robotic applications. IEEE/ASME Transactions On Mechatronics, 12(4), 418-429.