Module Aim

To develop an understanding of the impact of social media, from the perspective of security, intelligence and cyber influence.

Module Intended Learning Outcomes

On successful completion of this module a student should be able to:

• Assess the societal impact of social media
• Appraise the security requirements concerning risk and social media
• Evaluate the threats and opportunities provided by social media in relation to state activities and military operations, business practice, influence, intelligence and information assurance

Assignment Task:

'Social technologies have transformed individuals into both the subjects and instruments of influence in the information environment'. Critically discuss this statement with reference to relevant theory and empirical examples.

Deliverables Required
A Written Essay 1,500 +/- 10% words
To be submitted as a single coherent piece of work, via the VLE.

Instructions

This assignment requires you to critically discuss the extent to which social technologies have transformed individuals into both subjects and instruments of influence within the contemporary information environment. You are expected to engage with relevant theoretical perspectives and empirical examples, and to develop a coherent, well-evidenced argument.

Interpreting the Question

In addressing this question, you should demonstrate an understanding that:

• Social technologies extend beyond individual platforms and should be considered as sociotechnical systems that shape behaviour, interaction, and power.
• Being a subject of influence refers to the ways individuals are targeted, nudged, profiled, persuaded, or manipulated through digital systems.
• Being an instrument of influence refers to how individuals actively or passively contribute to influence processes through content creation, sharing, amplification, mobilisation, or data generation.
• You should critically evaluate how, why, and to what extent this dual role has emerged, recognising complexity rather than adopting a simplistic or binary position.

Structuring Your Argument

While you may structure your essay in different ways, a strong response is likely to include:

• An introduction that defines key terms, outlines the scope of the discussion, and presents a clear analytical position.
• Engagement with theory that helps explain how influence operates within social technologies (e.g. persuasion, platform design, algorithms, datafication, or digital behaviour).
• Critical analysis of individuals as subjects of influence, drawing on empirical examples such as targeted advertising, disinformation, algorithmic curation, or psychological manipulation.
• Critical analysis of individuals as instruments of influence, examining how user activity, collective behaviour, and participation contribute to influence campaigns, mobilisation, or information operations.
• Consideration of ethical, political, and societal implications, including issues of agency, responsibility, power, privacy, and governance.
• A conclusion that directly answers the question by offering a reasoned judgement on the extent and limits of this transformation.

Critical Expectations

High-quality submissions will:

• Integrate theory and empirical evidence rather than treating them separately.
• Demonstrate critical evaluation rather than description.
• Recognise tensions between agency and manipulation, empowerment and exploitation.
• Avoid overgeneralisation by acknowledging context (e.g. crisis, conflict, platform design).
• Show evidence of independent engagement with academic literature.

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

• Describing platforms or case studies without analytical purpose.
• Treating individuals as either fully autonomous or entirely passive.
• Relying heavily on non-academic or uncritical sources.
• Failing to explicitly address both subjects and instruments of influence.

This assignment is designed to assess your ability to synthesise complex ideas, apply theory to real-world contexts, and develop a critical, evidence-based argument. There is no single correct answer; credit will be given for clarity of thought, depth of analysis, and the quality of your engagement with the literature.

Stick to the word count (1,500 words, +/- 10%).
Submit to the Turnitin submission point on the VLE by no later than 12 noon on the due date.

To ensure accessibility, present your essay using:

• Arial
• 12 point
• 1.5 line spacing

Provide a cover/front page containing: the module title, your name and student number, the essay title, and your word count.

Title your file using the following format:
Student Number_SurnameInitial_Module
e.g. 654321_BloggsJ_HD

Include an acknowledgements section after your references. Under this section you should state whether or not you have used Generative AI (GenAI) tools. If you have used GenAI tools, state what you have used them for, and acknowledge any AI-generated text. This acknowledgements section is not included in your word count. For further information refer to the provisional guidance on Generative AI on the Cranfield Intranet.

Notes

• The cover / front sheet and list of references are NOT included in the word count.
• Figures and tables, if used, should be included in an appendix. These too will not be included in the word count.

Guidance

• If you need assistance with essay writing, resources can be found on the Study Skills Hub.
• If you would like to develop your digital knowledge, skills and confidence to work efficiently and effectively with technology, resources can be found on the Digital Skills Hub.
• Read the Task Description carefully. If you are unclear about what is required, please contact the module lead.
• Avoid long direct quotations. Paraphrasing is better as it enables you to demonstrate that you have understood the material you are referring to. It also helps you synthesise the material into the arguments you make.
• You should aim to produce an essay with a logical narrative flow, within and between paragraphs. Making use of signposting and summaries can help to direct and steer the reader through your work. If the essay has a logical flow, and you have signposted the structure of your essay, you should not need to include a contents page or use side headings, but you can use them should you wish to do so.
• Proofread your work carefully, paying attention to spelling, grammar, and referencing.
• Make use of the marking rubric.

Estimated time to complete
It is the responsibility of the student to allocate an appropriate amount of time to this piece of work based on the duration of the module, the weighting of the coursework and the hand in date.

Marking Scheme:

Marks will be awarded in the following areas:

• Evidence of understanding the topic 20%
• Academic input 15%
• Critical analysis 15%
• Arguments made 30%
• Structure 10%
• Presentation 5%
• Referencing 5%
• Total 100%

Marking Rubric

Criterion

% Weighting

Excellent 80-100%

Very Good 70-79%

Good 60-69%

Satisfactory 50-59%

Poor 40-49%

Very Poor 0-39%

Requirements

Pass/Fail

In the form of an evidence based, scholarly 1,500 word (+/- 10%) essay, has been able to critically assess the role of social technologies in transforming individuals into both subjects and instruments of influence in the information environment, using relevant theory and empirical examples.

Has not critically assessed the role of social technologies in transforming individuals into both subjects and instruments of influence in the information environment, using relevant theory and empirical examples.

Evidence of understanding the topic
Exploration of relevant issues, concepts, theories and findings introduced in lectures and other sources.

20%

Demonstrates comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the subject and subfields through effective application to the topic.

Demonstrates extensive knowledge and understanding of the subject and subfields through effective application to the topic.

Demonstrates good knowledge and understanding of the subject and subfields through adequate application to the topic.

Demonstrates satisfactory knowledge and understanding of the subject and subfields through adequate application to the topic.

Demonstrates inadequate knowledge and understanding of the subject and subfields through limited application to the topic.

Demonstrates lack of knowledge and understanding of the subject and subfields and makes no attempt to apply to the topic.

Academic input
Ability to research quality academic literature to support argument development and discussion.

15%

An extensive variety of high-quality peer reviewed academic sources are utilised, critically discussed and blended well with selective high-quality practitioner sources (where appropriate). Evidence of wider reading around the topic.

A variety of peer reviewed academic sources are utilised, critically discussed and blended with quality practitioner sources (where appropriate). Evidence of wider reading around the topic.

Some peer reviewed academic sources are utilised but there is limited consideration of the quality evident. Some evidence of wider reading around the topic.

A few peer reviewed academic sources are utilised, but more than half of sources are non-academic. Limited critique and limited evidence of wider reading around the topic.

Few peer reviewed academic sources are utilised, reliance on non-academic sources. No evidence of wider reading around the topic.

No academic sources are utilised. No evidence of wider reading around the topic.

Critical analysis
Critical analysis and evaluation of academic research and other quality sources.

15%

Demonstrates a high capacity for critical analysis and evaluation of sources.

Demonstrates a very good capacity for critical analysis and evaluation of sources.

Demonstrates a good capacity for critical analysis and evaluation of sources.

Attempts critique and evaluation of sources.

Lacking critique and evaluation of sources.

Absence of critique and evaluation of the subject matter.

Arguments made
Use of academic literature to support the development of an orderly argument and all assertions made.

30%

Arguments are extremely well justified with a clear narrative and well defended recommendation(s).

Arguments have clarity with a strong narrative and with clear justification for the recommendation(s).

Arguments have clarity and with some justification for the recommendation(s).

Arguments have some clarity and with minimal justification for the recommendation(s).

Arguments are unclear and with no justification for the recommendation(s).

Arguments are unclear and with no recommendation(s).

Structure
An appropriate structure for presenting ideas in a coherent argument, including an introduction and conclusion.

10%

A well-structured piece of work. A logical flow between sections.

A structured piece of work. A logical flow between sections.

A semi-structured piece of work. Some evidence of flow between sections.

Simple structure. Some evidence of flow between sections.

Simple structure. Lacking in flow between sections.

No structure or flow.

Presentation
Grammar, spelling, use of acronyms/jargon.

5%

Avoids all unnecessary jargon. Has no spelling or grammatical errors.

Avoids most unnecessary jargon. Has minimal spelling and grammatical errors.

Contains some unnecessary jargon. Has some spelling and grammatical errors.

Contains unnecessary jargon. Has spelling and grammatical errors.

Uses significant amount of unnecessary jargon. Has many spelling and grammatical errors.

Uses a significant amount of unnecessary jargon. Has significant spelling and grammatical errors.

Referencing
The APA7 referencing style was used.

5%

Referencing is clear, consistent, and error free. The APA7 referencing style has been used.

Referencing is clear and consistent but with minor errors. The APA7 referencing style has been used.

Referencing is relatively clear and consistent but with minor errors. The APA7 referencing style has been used.

Referencing is inconsistent and with minor errors. The APA7 referencing style has been attempted.

Referencing is inconsistent and incoherent, with obvious errors. The APA7 referencing style has not been used.

No references present.