Major government-related agencies, including Institutions of higher the FBI and NYPD, have published high-profile particularly elite schools such as AS studies, but both agencies use distinct Stanford and Harvard—historically have definitions. In addition, the FBI’s report uses a earned reputations as reliable sources modified version of the DHS’ official definition. of information for the general public. Major academic databases and analyses This disparity may cause confusion on a utilize widely varied terminology, which level greater than that from can be expected to cause discrepancies sources because the in perception by the public based on public often views these differences. produced information as authoritative. Through fostering intellectual discourse Uses of modified versions of and debate, academia generally does AS definitions fail to display not adopt and utilize common uniformity amongst US offices. definitions (i.e., similar to discussions Use of a shared definition could pertaining to terrorism and other standardize future reporting and potentially subjective terms). facilitate public and private sector understanding of the AS threat. Press outlets have utilized either government or academic resources as sourcing for major articles and reports. Given the aforementioned lack of shared definitions, this has exacerbated Figure . Semantic analysis of keywords found in the definitions of Active Shooter reports examined in this the problem. study. The New York Times, USA Today, and Prominent academic institutions, such as Mother Jones have released major and Stanford University and Harvard University, ongoing reports discussing the AS have provided substantial and ongoing input to problem set, but offer varied findings the public as well as to major press outlets. based on conflicting source material. Terms such as shootings” and “mass “mass USA Today and Mother Jones, for killings” (each with their unique definitions) example, also operate ongoing frequently are found within academia and databases that continue to aggravate inaccurately applied to the AS problem set. The the lack of a common definition. resulting conclusions drawn from these Because these individual press reports prominent institutions also may be seen as are based on unique data sets, the authoritative, given public perception of public often is presented with disparate academic institutions as adhering to perceived facts, figures, and findings—thus or actual rigorous and comprehensive data hindering a common understanding of collection and analysis. Despite this, academia the AS dynamic. also suffers from the same lack of commonality in AS definitions, frequently using disparate These varied dynamics complicate the use and terms that often are perceived by the public validity of externally sourced statistics and the press as identical or similar.
Major government-related agencies, including the FBI and NYPD, have published high-profile AS studies, but both agencies use distinct definitions. In addition, the FBI’s report uses a modified version of the DHS’ official definition. This disparity may cause confusion on a level greater than that from sources because the public often views information as authoritative. Uses of modified versions of AS definitions fail to display uniformity amongst US offices. Use of a shared definition could standardize future reporting and facilitate public and private sector understanding of the AS threat. Figure . Semantic analysis of keywords found in the definitions of Active Shooter reports examined in this study. Prominent academic institutions, such as Stanford University and Harvard University, have provided substantial and ongoing input to the public as well as to major press outlets. Terms such as “mass shootings” and “mass killings” (each with their unique definitions) frequently are found within academia and inaccurately applied to the AS problem set. The resulting conclusions drawn from these prominent institutions also may be seen as authoritative, given public perception of academic institutions as adhering to perceived or actual rigorous and comprehensive data collection and analysis. Despite this, academia also suffers from the same lack of commonality in AS definitions, frequently using disparate terms that often are perceived by the public and the press as identical or similar. Institutions of higher elite schools such as Stanford and Harvard—historically have earned reputations as reliable sources of information for the general public. Major academic databases and analyses utilize widely varied terminology, which can be expected to cause discrepancies in perception by the public based on these differences. Through fostering intellectual discourse and debate, academia generally does not adopt and utilize common definitions (i.e., similar to discussions pertaining to terrorism and other potentially subjective terms). Press outlets have utilized either government or academic resources as sourcing for major articles and reports. Given the aforementioned lack of shared definitions, this has exacerbated the problem. The New York Times, USA Today, and Mother Jones have released major and ongoing reports discussing the AS problem set, but offer varied findings based on conflicting source material. USA Today and Mother Jones, for example, also operate ongoing databases that continue to aggravate the lack of a common definition. Because these individual press reports are based on unique data sets, the public often is presented with disparate facts, figures, and findings—thus hindering a common understanding of the AS dynamic. These varied dynamics complicate the use and validity of externally sourced statistics produced particularly
AS%20Overview.docx