Showing posts with label social change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social change. Show all posts

Saturday, 3 December 2022

How Cybersecurity Might Become More Diverse, Equitable and Inclusive

One of the benefits of working in the same home office as one of the top teacher librarians in the country is that we're able to bounce ideas off each other. Making cybersafety awareness a part of every educator's professional standard of practice isn't a nice idea in 2022, it's a necessity, but the industry continues to have trouble attracting talent and many teachers have little or no training in it.  Alanna has listened to me lamenting the lack of diversity and engagement in the field for many years but this week she offered a solution by linking the DEI research she has been doing to develop an inclusive information management system with the lack of diversity and engagement in cyber.

You might not think that creating a digital media cataloguing system would require much in the way of equity awareness, but it does. How we categorize and deliver data requires a working awareness of DEI or it quickly becomes another means of systemic discrimination. Having used it, Alanna suggested Building Movement Project's  Social Change Ecosystem Map as a tool for challenging some of the masculine cultural cues that usually define cybersecurity as a discipline.

Considering diverse talents and motivations could work as a way to bring more diversity into the field of cybersecurity.

Characteristics of the Roles

Weavers: I see the through-lines of connectivity between people, places, organizations, ideas, and movements.
Experimenters: I innovate, pioneer, and invent. I take risks and course-correct as needed.
Frontline Responders: I address community crises by marshaling and organizing resources, networks, and messages.
Visionaries: I imagine and generate our boldest possibilities, hopes and dreams, and remind us of our direction.
Builders: I develop, organize, and implement ideas, practices, people, and resources in service of a collective vision.
Caregivers: I nurture and nourish the people around me by creating and sustaining a community of care, joy, and connection.
Disruptors: I take uncomfortable and risky actions to shake up the status quo, to raise awareness, and to build power.
Healers: I recognize and tend to the generational and current traumas caused by oppressive
systems, institutions, policies, and practices.
Storytellers: I craft and share our community stories, cultures, experiences, histories, and
possibilities through art, music, media, and movement.
Guides: I teach, counsel, and advise, using my gifts of well-earned discernment and wisdom.

Cybersecurity had strong ties to the military early in its development, which attracted the 'frontline responders' already working there. Military roles are traditionally male dominated and so cyber began as a predominantly male field, but applying these other roles would open cybersecurity to a more diverse range of interests, skills and motivations, but it requires a significant rethink of the assumptions that surround the subject. If you consider cybersecurity as a combination of security and computer science, both fields have a history of male dominance, though in the case of computer science the patriarchy was a recent event (it happened just as computer science was becoming profitable because that's how glass ceilings work).

The problem with clinging to this cultural predisposition in cybersecurity is that it continues to create a male focus in hiring. Women may struggle to see how they fit in a field that presents itself with such a masculine bias. Getting away from the military/first responder mindset might be a way to recast cybersecurity in a different light.

Looking at the less represented roles in the social change ecosystem, weavers would bring connectivity and communications to the field - something it currently lacks. Visionaries would bring the perspective and scope needed to move cybersecurity out of its often reactive stance, though that would also mean giving up the unquestioned control that accompanies emergency response; that may be the hardest ask of all.

Recasting cybersecurity in terms of caregiving and healing was where Alanna saw the most gains. Cybersafety is a foundational skill in an increasingly connected world, yet its treated (if it's acted on at all) as an emergency response after the fact, becoming a self fulfilling prophecy for the first-responder mindset. By finding a place for caregivers and healers on cybersecurity teams, the approach to user training and even post-breach response would be significantly different. Can you imagine cyber support that isn't emergency response defined? Neither can many of the people in the industry because they can only conceive of it through their own motivational approach which also happens to align with cyber-culture.

Digital skills remain poor and continue to represent
the most successful opportunity for cyberattackers.
Other atypical motivators also have a role in cybersecurity. Storytellers and guides are motivated by sharing narratives and teaching complexity and empathy rather than fixating on problem solving. The vast majority of cyber-incidents are the result of user ignorance and error. Most malware ends up on a network because a user mistakenly put it there, not because a 'super hacker' got in. If we hope to address this primary form of ingress (atrocious user digital literacy), we need to bring in people who can create meaningful narratives and engage with learning because it's their primary motivation.

Of course these roles aren't absolute, no one is just one of them, but by applying the social change ecosystem we identify biases implicit in cybersecurity culture that disclude anyone but those interested in heroic intervention or technical response. By valuing alternate motivations and the specialized skillsets that accompany them, hiring practices in cybersecurity would become more inclusive and the workforce more diverse. That inclusivity does more than check a DEI box. A diverse workforce offers a richer range of approaches to problem solving and prevents blind spots based on a privileged monocultural beliefs. This diversity would make the critically important discipline of cybersecurity more resilient, accessible and effective.


Resources


We're currently working on CYBERBYTES at ICTC & Knowledgeflow CyberSafety Foundation: www.cyberbytes.ca  We are creating easy to complete micro-credentials that provide educators with a working understanding of the technology that makes our networked world work, the key elements of CyberSafety and online privacy and how you can bring these important skills and understandings to your students so that they and their families can safely and effectively use the networked technology that surrounds us in 2022.

The Building Movement: https://buildingmovement.org/ supports and pushes the nonprofit sector to tackle the most significant social issues of our times by developing research, creating tools and training materials, providing guidance, and facilitating networks for social change.

THE SOCIAL CHANGE ECOSYSTEM MAP (2020)https://buildingmovement.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Ecosystem-Guide-April-2022.pdf

A History of Cybersecurity: https://cyber-security.degree/resources/history-of-cyber-security/

Empowering women can help fix the cybersecurity staff shortage: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/09/cybersecurity-women-stem/

Occupational digitalization trends in Canada, 2006-2021: https://fsc-ccf.ca/research/race-alongside-the-machines/

Global Digital Skills Index, 2022: https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/salesforceresearch/viz/shared/NNRKYDH37

Future Skills: https://temkblog.blogspot.com/2022/10/2022-tmc7-research-symposium-table.html

If we would redefine digital skills through a media literacy lens, we would also open up these pathways to a wider variety of learners. Defining digital skills as 'coding' is reductive, unhelpful and excludes a number of alternate learning motivations.


Friday, 13 May 2011

Setting the Stage

I somehow managed to fanangle my way into an Edtech symposium this week on the sustainable development of digital technology in education. Amidst former deputy ministers of education, board CIOs and other provincial education types I got to see the other side of the equation.

This year as head of Computers/IT has been good for this actually, getting my head out of the classroom context and seeing the bigger picture. I've been able to attend imaging committee meetings at the board level and gained an understanding of why everyone can't have whatever they want. At this past meeting I tweeted that I felt like a sergeant from the trenches who suddenly found himself in a 5-star strategic planning meeting; it was engrossing.

From Hamilton-Wentworth's awesome curriculum push into 21st Century Fluencies to what New Brunswick has been doing to get ahead of the game, I found the board and provincial interest in pushing ahead with our use of technology in the class to be... a relief!

During any battle to use digital technology in the class room (getting access, getting it to work, getting students over their jitters), I often feel like I'm losing ground. I'll take one step forward in implementing a new piece of technology in a lesson or on a school wide basis, and get knocked back two steps by angry senior teachers who feel out of step with what's going on, or lack of access to equipment, or failure of the tech, or OCT/board restrictions that seem panicky and unfounded, or the union telling of a horror story that seems to justify panicky and unfounded restrictions...

One of my preliminary thoughts before I went was to ask about how to beat the malaise of that feeling; how not to give up. I've heard from colleagues about how they burn out trying to push that envelope, and ultimately just disappear back into their classrooms and do their own thing. John Kershaw had an honest and helpful response to the question:

During his talk he spoke of a big set back where the winning party in an election used his one laptop per student policy as an example of government waste, and won on it, after telling him that they supported the program. This is exactly the kind of thing that brings idealists to their knees. His solution was pragmatic: work on your environment. Set the stage so that what you're doing becomes a certainty, if not now, then eventually.

In the case of the laptop plan, he'd done groundwork with business groups (who were onside for more digitally literate graduates), the general public (who wanted their children more literate with technology), and the school system (who wanted to better prepare their students for their futures). That groundwork meant that even though the politics turned on him in the moment, the plan eventually went through, and he got what he thought was important; a New Brunswick education system that actually mattered in a 21st Century context.

I've been thinking over his for a few days now. If you're on the right side of history, if you know you're fighting a good fight, you've got to shrug off the knock backs. If you keep working to create the environment you're aiming for, and you know you're part of a wave of change, have some faith in the fact that the truth of what you're trying to do will eventually win out.