Ontology (‘what is’) is a topic students often have difficulty grappling with in their work. It tends to end up being a set of buzzwords that people lay fealty to (interpretivist! Social constructionist!) and generalist statements about society being ever changing and such. It should be a set of thinking tools that should help you work through the research problem you are examining. Let’s start by asking why we care about this dimension, and what it means. Ontology has two aspects. First, it is the set of ground truths that you take as elemental to your study which limit how you can study it. Second it is a set of disputes about the nature of social reality and evidence about it which both affect your research and that can be studied as part of it.

To illustrate both, here are some competing ontological statements:

1. What we call society is just the observed outcome of social interaction.
2. People’s identities are intersectional
3. IQ is destiny

Each statement claims a ground truth about an element of social life which is fundamental to it. Each is structured something like ‘before we consider anything, we have to consider this’. Before talking about education outcomes, we have to consider that children enter the education system with a set of capacities measured by IQ, which shape outcomes far down the line. Before examining how people group themselves into functioning units we need to see how they create boundaries through interaction. Before considering experience we must understand position.

How are research problems produced from these statements? Consider what might falsify each of these statements. For example, if you studied intersectionality and found that class position was dominant. Or that sex mattered in a way that was fundamentally different from other identity categories.

Questions to ask yourself:

1. What tangible entities shape human life but are independent of it?
2. How do human categories map onto naturally occurring taxonomies?
3. What purpose do cultural categories serve?
4. Are there natural laws in social life?

The best way to understand ontology as a concept is through tracking disagreements in your field. Here is one: at the moment medical startups are seeking to develop psychedelic treatments that do not have psychedelic effects. This is part of legitimating the treatment as a medicine. But many people in the psychedelic community do not see the positive effects as separable from the psychedelic experience and see this is a questionable, somewhat hostile move. You cannot alter your state without altering your state. The same disagreement played out over cannabis’ analgesic properties. Can you produce a drug that separates out its intoxicant effect? Is it the same drug, and the same experience? These are ontological question. Questions about what the object is, fundamentally.

Another example, which is about how people position themselves in relation to natural entities. People say ‘follow the science’ until the science disagrees on something they care about. Then they question the science. ‘The science’ is treated as some unified final court of appeal about whatever the issue is. When they do not like what the science is saying, they immediately seek to discredit it, pointing to various epistemological limitations and biases. Its ontological status changes from a bias free revealed truth to a politicised, human shaped process which can be questioned. Is one true and one false?

This takes us from ontology to epistemology, which asks where knowledge about the world derives its authority from. In the above case, the source of authority is political expediency. In other places it is traditional authority, or ‘it’s aye been that way’. The quality these have is there is something that refuses to be questioned.

As Olivia Rodrigo so wisely said ‘it’s brutal out there’. But we are never so brutal as with ourselves.

1. Apply widely and be adaptable – you can fit into more posts and get something from them than you may realise. Recognise what they are looking for.
2. Aim high and value yourself – even if you do not get it you will get on people’s radar.
3. Show ambition for yourself and them – it is exciting to think how you might energise a place.

Before you begin think through why you want the job, what you will do with the post and where it will take you. That last step is the most important. Every job leads somewhere. Think ahead to where you will be in a year or two if you were to take up the post, what you would have liked to have made happen in it, and put that in the your cover letter. Talk over with a more senior colleague/your PhD supervisor about what the post is asking for and how it fits with your goals. Look at the job requirements and be strict with yourself. Is there anything missing and what can you do about it? As an example: many lecture jobs ask for experience of course leadership which is hard to obtain as a PhD student. Something you can do to bridge that gap is design a course that would be taught if you get the post, lay out the curriculum, course themes and so on. You do not need to actually do it, just show that you have potential. For your research, show your publication plan and your intentions as well as what you have done. Demonstrate you recognise and can meet the demands of the post even if you might not have met them all yet.

Some specific advice about your application:

1. Write your cover letter for the job you are applying for. When applying for a teaching position do not write an epic 4+ page cover letter detailing your interesting research and then have half a paragraph at the end about your teaching. It makes it seem like you do not really care about the job. Put that bit up front.
2. ALSO do not write epic 4+ page cover letters. Cover letters should be 2 sides maximum. Try and hit all the requirements in the job specification. Tell your story about your take on the post, what you want to bring with it and do with it. You are a whole package, so show that. Use the language of the job specification in the letter.
3. Structure your cover letter as a 3-step: Here is why I want the job, and why I am the best fit for it, here are a few examples of why that is the case and here is what I would do if I got the job. The cover letter should show the challenges you met and what happened as a result of the fabulous work you did. Do not rely on anything to speak for itself. For example:

“One of the big challenges in higher education is giving students feedback they value. I asked the students I was tutoring what they did with their feedback and most were not using it. I scheduled a session where we read our feedback together. I then held a session for other tutors and lecturers showing how this improved student satisfaction with their feedback”. This example shows: your ability to think about the bigger picture, to recognise a problem and address it, and show leadership in bringing your solution to others. It could be done as one of the ‘fill in’ examples I mention above. If you are a tutor you could easily do that in preparation for your job applications to show your nascent leadership skills. Then you can show how the job might allow you scale that up into something more ambitious.

Teaching qualifications are really starting to matter, both in themselves and because they help you reflect on your teaching in the way described above. So do take the Edinburgh Teaching Award or equivalent Advance HE qualification. Look at the Advance HE professional standards framework and draw on that language in your application. Again show how this helped you, where it took you. Applications should be forward looking.

Rule 3.5 They have to want you. But you also have to want them. Do not flay yourself for a job that is not for you.

In my quest to expose the writing process I have structured this paper using named paragraphs. Each paragraph has a title showing the purpose it performs as part of the overall paper structure. This should help putting the paper together as a coherent argument, showing how each bit adds to the whole. Here we go:

A crime script analysis of vendor of forged US dollars and their community

Abstract

This article presents a crime script analysis of a darknet cryptomarket based counterfeit currency vendor and their community, putting the script into a technical-material context. It outlines the two interlinked crime scripts covering the last two stages of the counterfeit currency distribution system, for the currency vendor and middleman, ‘Benjamin’, and the buyer who will use the currency. The discussion forum allows each script to be fine tuned and creates feedback for the vendor on the quality and effectiveness of the notes. The online community is critical to the distribution of the notes and to their effective use.

Introduction: Community developed modus operandi

What the study does: This paper describes the final stages of a counterfeit currency distribution network operating using a Tor darknet cryptomarket, covering the phase from secondary distribution to retail use. The cryptomarket is shown to function as the ‘last mile’ distributor  (Dittus, Wright, and Graham 2017) of counterfeit currency to buyers who will use it in the field, either individually or in tandem with an organised group.  The case shows an example of a functioning supply chain from producer to final user and demonstrates how the darknet functions as both a distribution mechanism for the product and a learning environment for distributor and users, where they share user defined crime scripts for the successful use of counterfeit currency. The paper focuses mainly on the process by which users develop and test effective crime scripts, what it tells about their priorities, their accounts of motive, and how they position themselves in relation to the wider illicit economy.

Suggest an audience: Counterfeiting is tackled by a range of bodies including the specialist policing taskforces such as the UK National Crime Agency Central Office for the Suppression of Counterfeit Currency and Protected Coins, central banks, and retailer/banking business organisations . Why it matters: Forged currency involves immediate risks to those handling the notes and longer term potential harms in damaging trust in the cash economy. There is a concentration of harm among frontline staff and smaller businesses. Cashiers or waiting staff who unwittingly handle fake notes might have their wages docked or be prosecuted. Smaller businesses which handle more cash will likewise be more at risk. It damages trust and costs are socialised to the rest of the economy. The most cash depending demographic in society is also the part of the population that has least access to banking systems and credit and are most reliant on cash for paying and being paid. As economies become more digitised and cash is steadily squeezed out of mainstream payment processes the harm of counterfeiting is increasingly concentrated among the more marginalized groups. Concerted efforts to tackle counterfeiting by reducing dependence on cash and actively targeting counterfeiting does not improve their position nor create alternative routes to finance for them. In fact it may have a damaging effect on the unbanked swathe of society, particularly in developing country contexts (Wang 2020).

Get this in proportion: Currency counterfeiting is relatively uncommon in the West. In 2003 the US Federal Reserve estimated that less than 1 in 10000 currency notes were counterfeit (Judson and Porter 2003), a result also reported for the Canadian dollar (Chant 2004) and estimated at 1 in 40,000 for the UK Pound Sterling (Bank of England 2022) and 1 in 14000 for the Mexican peso [Bank of Mexico]. Counterfeiting of the Indian Rupee is more common and appears to be rising significantly from 2019 (Reserve Bank of India 2019, 2022). Money laundering through electronic means and crimes such as cheque fraud and card-not-present fraud are much more significant in terms of loss and harmful in spreading corruption and funding the activities of organised criminal groups.  Changes in the era of debt led/credit fueled capitalism have further limited the opportunities for counterfeiting currency when more lucrative rewards lie in defrauding the banking sector (Kahn and Roberds 2008). Improved detection of fakes and improved note design have increased the technical demands on counterfeiters. Despite that there is still enough of an incentive for the practice to persist and even grow among some currencies such as the rupee, while there has in contrast been a decline in counterfeit euro circulation.

We should still care: Despite the challenges presented to counterfeiters, money forgery persists. It evolves and shifts with the value put on various cash types and denominations, and the security/detection technology employed by central banks. Increasingly banknotes are designed as one element of a technological whole which encompasses processing and detection technologies. The rise of automated processing points such as supermarket autopay terminals changes the process away from human detection. Machines can be designed to be more sensitive to particular aspects of the note such as precise weight or shape. These changed technological assemblages shift common understandings of what cash is in symbolic and practical terms, for example, from a store of capital to an object of value that can vary independently of its stated face value (Lemon 1998).

Hinge – it’s a niche but an interesting one: Much research and intervention focuses on electronic money laundering and large scale counterfeiting. The growth in currency during 2020/21 also makes it likely that there are more opportunities for counterfeiting. Narrative justification: Forgery may be beginning to matter more. At November 2021, US currency in circulation amounted to 2,116.4 US$ billion in seasonally adjusted figures, 9.9% of the M2 money supply (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 2021). Up to two thirds of the cash dollar supply is held outwith the USA [find another reference]. Despite the general move to digital payments, the cash supply has steadily grown throughout 2020/21 along with a broad increase in the money supply. The growth reflects central banks’ intervention in the economy under the Covid-19 pandemic. Counterfeit seizure rates have also fallen dramatically.

A theoretical postulate shows my contribution: The role of counterfeiting the crime business model. The main problem in maintaining the counterfeit currency economy is that to have any use value notes must circulate into the real economy quickly and in so doing are effectively nullified. They are detected and eliminated or become in any case useless to criminals. Criminals depend on that to wash fake notes into real money or goods. As a result the counterfeit economy is inherently parasitic on both the legal and illegal economies and is no way self sustaining. Furthermore there a tension in the business model. To make the most counterfeit notes need to be of high value ($50 and $100) which are likely to attract more scrutiny when used. The largest value is in these denominations and the largest number of notes in circulation are $100. Many more transactions will have to take place to put them into use, raising the time and labour cost. All that makes it difficult to keep a counterfeit currency business going.

The topic in techno-social history: Digital crime is a technosocial construct. It is a hybrid of different systems and exploits. Technological demand/affordances matter. Counterfeit currency is characterised by many embedded techno-material factors such as the advent of desktop publishing and laser printing. The US Federal Reserve in 2003 note the cost of creating plausible counterfeits (Judson and Porter 2003). However distributed digitally enabled manufacturing appears to have brought some of the startup/fixed capital costs down (Li and Rocheteau 2011) and offset lithography can produce quality notes rapidly (NCA). Distribution is still very costly as they must be widely spread in order to be successful used. That may be an area where things have changed given the expansion in money mule and other distributed money laundering activity which lends itself more easily to counterfeit currency distribution.

Introduce the conceptual construct: the criminal community shares and tests the crime script against real world practice. Scripts are not wholly evolved and are going to be adapted all the time. The community closes the loop on that. The crime script consists of three basic stages prepare/pre-empt, doing/actualizing, end state/reset. It has to function as a whole set, a failure in one element cause the script to cease functioning. The crime script encapsulates the conditions for the act to occur, the preparation, entry/action and exit requirements and the post-condition. Dividing the script into its strategic and tactical components allows interventions to be planned which disrupt the criminal opportunity.

Second contribution I make: I analyse the technology used in material terms rather than as the crime medium. Beyond tech as a modality/fabric for crime (Van Nguyen 2021) and onto tech as a material context constitutive of actors. Given how embedded technology is in everyday life (Hine 2015) and the rise of crime as a service we can move past the idea of technology as a quality existing on a scale, from cyber-assisted through cyber-enabled to cyber-dependent. As technology is now so embedded we have to move past that and think of tech as part of the material matrix. Consider a phone scam that’s highly centralised, using phone lists, combines high and low tech. A helpline fraud might use largely the same setup and be fairly low tech given the tools they use are basic – hence the high level of hacking back against them. So tech is mostly too mixed and crime is too mixed skill to make this determination. [analysis should reflect this – be sensitive to different types of action/interaction]. Embedded security features in currency – polymer notes, holograms and other design features. These features also work as part of a whole system so that tellers can spot fakes.

Show direction: This article will examine the micro-process of last mile distribution and the interface between user purchase and practice.  Research Questions this paper addresses:

1. What crime scripts are used by currency vendors and buyers?
2. How do counterfeit vendor and user make use of the technical/material qualities of the notes?
3. How does the social structure of the vendor-user relationship work with or against the CS?
4. How does counterfeit currency operate as part of its own technical assemblage

Method

The field make an effective case study because: Cryptomarkets are open, anonymous markets hosted using the Tor onion hosting service. Combined with bitcoin or another cryptocurrency payment system they allow goods to be sold in relative anonymity and without buyer and seller meeting. The seller posts a product listing and the buyer pays using a decentralised cryptocurrency which is held in market escrow. The drug package is sent to them through postal service, courier or dead drop. On receipt, or after a certain amount of time has elapsed, the payment is released to the seller. At least in theory that is the process, however increasingly sellers requirement payments immediately, showing that the power lies in the market with them. The process was adapted for sellers of counterfeit dollars.

How the large case set links to the concept: Cryptomarkets are a place of ‘offender convergence’ (Felson 2006) characterized by ‘extended co-offending’ (Felson 2009), and they have some unique qualities as criminogenic spaces. Offenders can liaise and share intelligence and material without meeting. They provide a quality feedback loop where buyers discuss and compare products. They can be a testing ground for new products and new criminal business models. The particular cryptomarket hosting Benjamin is an open model. Anyone can join. Most goods and services can be offered, other than child pornography. Vendors may restrict customers according to location, willingness to spend, or a preexisting relationship.

The research design is constrained by the data: The project uses a single case study of a discussion between counterfeit dollar vendor and their customers. The discussion takes place over a long time period, allowing the evolving practice of both vendor and users to be followed. Mapping vendor and user crime scripts allowed me to systematise my understanding of their practice and develop a generalised outline of each players’ approach to executing their crime.

The paper makes a methodological contribution: Methodologically, the paper addresses a challenge of criminological research with dispersed entities, non-synchronous interactions, non-human. Draw on existing social research such as ethnography of infrastructures, multi-sited ethnography, hybrid ethnography ‘Material’ = : I analyse the technology used in material terms rather than as the crime medium. Beyond tech as a modality/fabric for crime and onto tech as a material context constitutive of actors.

Outline the general process of how I got here: Crime script analysis is a sequence analysis method of criminal knowledge formation. It follows four broad stages: Preparation – identification of opportunity and means. Assembly – putting the criminal into place, assembling the necessary precursors. Commission – the crime commission itself. Post-activity – getting away, extracting value, other necessary end states to reset the sequence (Chainey and Alonso Berbotto 2021). Each stage can be broken down into further elements depending on need. Dehghanniri and Borrion (2016) model the process to produce the crime script. The first step defines the problem, such as wage theft or dumping waste in the environment. It also shows what the crime script is intended to do which guides the analyst to the level of detail needed. An analysis that will be used in deploying surveillance will have different needs to one which seeks to change compliance rules. The second step elaborates the information requirements which flow from that: the analyst might be interested more in how this crime is committed, who is involved, and/or what facilitates it.  The narrative analysis was key to allowing me to understand much more about how the script was developed and finessed by the group.

The specific process, neatly: The discussion was first open coded and then recoded according to the crime script stages for both the vendor and currency users as in table 1. Critical stages, cast and conditions for each process, vendor and user, were identified as detailed by Thompson and Chainey (2011). Contextualisation codes such as ‘Deference to community’ were also created. Context codes were in part derived from the existing literature, for example, the importance of claims to ‘insider’ roles and knowledge (Holt and Lee 2020). This was done in order to place the CSA in a material context. Matrix coding was then conducted cross tabulating the contextualizing codes with the CSA codes. These codes fed into the crime script coding, for example, technical features were coded and then distributed according to their function in the precondition/actualisation parts of the script. That exposed the technical, stealth, performative and organisational features at different stages of the CS execution. Cases were created for each contributor to the forum and the attribute function was used to record their role/stance. Text was coded to every contributor. Possible roles were: vendor, valid buyer, sock puppet. The forum has 72 cases of which x were xx. Vignettes were created for each participant, providing a sketch of their participation, for example, whether they changed position or left over time. Open data principles have been applied. The dataset is available and archived by the University of Edinburgh.

Findings

Meta criminal context: Benjamin (gender unknown) is a re-seller for the supplier Willy.Clock who had developed a public profile at the time and was known to the other members of the forum, and who was supported by another distributor, Mr. Mouse (Krebs 2014). Willy.clock is a Uganda based counterfeiter, Ryan Andrew Gustafson who was arrested in 2014 and who pled guilty in 2018 to charges of counterfeiting.

There is a network of sites validating each other so participants do not take anything on trust: Another onion site hosted support for note users and was used to validate the identities of distributors as a basic authenticity check. There was a well known distribution logic at work: The NCA states that criminal networks operate by breaking bulk production into smaller units that can be distributed and used by lower level criminals, so this appears to be a case of that being done. Benjamin introduces themselves in what becomes a long thread where buyers return to critique their product and debate how it should be used. Benjamin responds by defending the product, saying that buyers are using it improperly, and eventually agreeing that the counterfeit notes are not what they were.

Define the process in stages: The process is one of a spiral where the notes are tested in real world use and refined. The scrip derived from Benjamin and friends is therefore part of a meta-crime script involving the testing and innovation of the production process. Benjamin’s second stage role meant they could palm off some of the responsibility for poor quality product onto the supplier. The discussion was characterised by in depth explorations of the technical features of the notes, their consistency and reliability. Some participants appeared to be much closer to Benjamin and interacted with them outside the forum via a messaging service. Contributors ranged from these close accomplices to more casual users of the notes who were much less committed to the crime script.

The group context: To an extent the group as a whole worked on developing their crime script through comparing different experiences with using the notes, their opinions on their technical qualities, and advice about how to successfully use them without being detected. In this way what mattered to them became apparent. The technical qualities of the notes were a means to an end: their ability to use them successfully and then use the knowledge gained to buy more. Successful repeat use was

The interactional context: the forum allows for critique and requires a level of commitment from Benjamin. Benjamin introduces themselves as a known quantity, with feedback from another cryptomarket, the Black Market. They set out the security features of the product they are selling. It is claimed to be single ply, a security strip on the $100 dollar note, the ability to pass the pen test, a watermark, accurate colour using offset lithography, colour shifting ink, microprinting, a believable physical texture and resilience when dunked in water. The product seems to be high quality. Benjamin immediately adds a caveat. The bills do not contain magnetic ink, ferrofluid added to the bill to give it a distinct magnetic signature. That allows machines to distinguish between denominations and to reject fakes. Benjamin begins with a clear statement: any problems in passing the currency off as real are due to the failure of the buyer to adhere to an effective protocol.

Narrative breakdown: the thread begins positively. It all began so well – the golden period: sales and feedback are good. Benjamin begins with $100 notes and teases customers with the prospect of $50s and $20s. Early on after the thread begins they claim to have sold 300 $100 notes, for a face value of $30,000. Amounts purchased ranged up to 100 notes, $10,000 face value. They charge 50% of the face value of the notes though bulk buyers can obtain a larger discount. Buyers express excitement and anticipation for Benjamin receiving new stocks to pass onto them. The first bat h is well received. The second batch Benjamin sends out much less so. The quality of the notes deteriorates and users become disgruntled. A back and forth happens with one critic called out as a shill, and gradually disgruntlement builds as other users who had previously praised the notes now begin to question them. At this point the forum starts to divide. Users who have success with the notes allege that it is buyer failure to use them properly that is responsible for any problems.

If anybody finds their notes so atrocious, dunk them in water and wash all of the pen treatment off. It won’t pass the pen test, but it will sure as hell feel like real money … Alternatively, read through the forums and pay attention to what others to do give them their own touch. I’m not into replying to this negative BS, but I’ll manage to give you these few pointers.” Benjamin

One instance of a general phenomenon: As with other illicit and legal markets, there is a tendency towards bulking up sales following initial success. Benjamin decides to set a five note minimum order. Some buyers respond that this freezes them out. Note quality starts to decline:

“Lastly, and this is what is everyones biggest complain/concern so far, is the feel. Unless the clerk is wearing gloves I don’t know how they wouldn’t notice most of the bills waxy feel in comparison to the real notes. So that would be a dead give away to people who handle money regularly.”

Narrative turn with some colour: There then begins a conflictual phase in which Benjamin alternatively defends themselves and disappears for a time, stating they are working on fixing the problems with the notes that buyers have started to identify.  Some participants sought to defend the operation from criticism. In one section, the discussion focused on security researcher Krebs (link) was sent counterfeit notes which he described as not being of very good quality. Several participants explained this away as a fakeout by Willy.Clock, the producer:

I think it was an inside operation by WC and Mouse if I had to guess, and ya thousands and thousands of retailers use Krebs and even catch up with him on Twitter, and everything seen on Krebs gets instantly passed down to loads of other websites and news sites too, if you google Mr Mouse counterfeits he’s all over the place thanks to Krebs.

The aim, they allege, was for the producer to spread misinformation to retailers about what they should look for in counterfeit notes.Complaints pile up on the forum. Orders do not arrive on time, quality suffers and communication with Benjamin becomes patchy. Benjamin stalls for time, promising refunds if the deliveries do not appear, which annoys customers whose money Benjamin has. Benjamin blames the market’s administrative system for problems and asks buyers to contact them directly and pay in bitcoin, triggering another round of criticism as this process gives the buyers no guarantees. The tone of the forum changes. Previous supportive members write long, highly critical posts. Benjamin struggles with justifying the perceived declining quality of the notes and promising improvements. They claim that the loss of quality is a matter of perception, that initial enthusiasm for the notes inflated expectations, and admits to some lower quality notes being shipped due to the influx of new orders limiting their quality control processes. Benjamin is suspended for a time by his supplier for failing to communicate well with their clients, and for not properly prepping the notes before sale, as the supplier begins to worry about the blowback from negative experiences with the notes Benjamin sells.

Benjamin complains about his relationship with the forum and sometimes the supplier, Willy.Clock. There is some suspicion that starting with good stock is a strategy to then switch buyers to less convincing notes. Some buyers acknowledge that they are on the lowest point on the food chain, and are unlikely to be offered supernotes which sell for much more and go to better invested users. Buyers argue with Benjamin and each other about the work they needed to do to the notes to make them look and feel more plausible.

I also went and just tried to play around with a note myself and I sprayed it with acrylic matte spray after putting it in water and drying it off and pressed it in the pages of a book and put a table leg on that. Now it’s fantastic! If the paper is good the rest of the note is great!!

Narrative closure: Benjamin in response goes on sabbatical in order to address the problems with the notes that buyers have identified, returning with what are claimed as notes that pass the pen test and feel close to the real thing. Enthusiasm resumes as these notes are distributed. As this wave of enthusiasm builds, the supplier is arrested, bringing the thread to an end.

Now about the context, the forum is a social space: Benjamin enjoys support from thread participants who advise on fine tuning note design and use. Benjamin had a number of buyers who were very positive about the product. As problems emerged they were accused of being sock puppet accounts. These acolytes proposed that if people were finding problems getting the notes accepted they were doing it wrong. They were following the wrong strategy, or were inherently suspicious individuals who invited greater scrutiny. Benjamin endorses these readings. Although one can never be sure, it did appear that these were genuine accounts who had made purchases through the system. Tell us why we now need to know about crime scripts: The business logic required a supporting chorus of satisfied buyers who could validate the quality of the notes and how they were used, in the form of a shared crime script.

Using the crime script

Start with a basic taxonomy: Participants had various roles: structuring, supporting, guiding, questioning, and various degrees of investment in Benjamin’s success. Some were highly critical of the entire process and said that passing of fake currency was only good for people who could not make it as drug dealers. Others saw their role as validating the genuineness of Benjamin’s efforts. One user, thisoldman, became critical in guiding buyers through the crime script, and users reported success with guidance from them. Thisoldman offered a guide for purchase to passing notes which could be bought through the site. They passed out tips on how to improve the passability of the notes by altering their appearance and feel.

The two separate scripts for Benjamin and their customers are set out side by side in Table 1. There was more information on the customers’ script as they participated much more in the discussion which involved troubleshooting their use of the notes. I have included both as they both centre around the forum in different ways. The forum was crucial to both scripts in different ways.

Showing there is more than a technical function/aptitude needed: From the point of view of Benjamin, creating a plausible cryptomarket identity was the first technical step. Then they needed to satisfy two reputational requirements. They needed to be in good standing with their supplier in order to secure a large enough order of notes to make redistribution profitable, and to appear both plausible and reliable to the users of the crytpomarket. Buyers were taking a risk buying the notes as they had little recourse if they turned out to be unusable. Throughout the process Benjamin had to calibrate their expectations of what they have, do the technical work of processing and sending orders, review users experience in the forum, send feedback to the supplier and cash out. Engagement with the forum was needed to manage the customer base and keep them involved:

My supplier has just informed me that a rather LARGE shipment is in DHL processing now, and should be coming out of customs shortly. Keep your fingers crossed people!”,,

A notable aspect of this was Benjamin’s willingness to expose their own process. A key instrumental precondition was prepping and batching notes for distribution and Benjamin wrote often about the process of preparing the notes, showing how the process might go wrong and acknowledging the uncertanties:

It means that MrMouse and I among other retailers are having to treat notes ourselves with makeshift methods from the boss, and we aren’t artists like Willy, so we struggle. We don’t have access to the chemicals that Willy does on his end for proper treatment. We get the job done (as in your notes will definitely pass the pen test), but recouping the pure authentic feel has been a challenge.

Closing the feedback loop with the supplier was necessary to continue the script. Benjamin had to give feedback to Willy.Clock and inform the forum of how the notes were changing in response.

Benjamin and some key contributors maintained a modus operandi document, effectively their own literal crime script, to guide users through the process. The document involved ensuring users did not try too high and invite suspicion, for example, by buying a one dollar item with a one hundred dollar note.

Showing how the findings are structured: The relationship between Benjamin and their buyers was one where Benjamin acted as an avatar for the notes. From the point of view of the user the central elements of the process were identifying a point to swap out fake notes for real ones, turn the counterfeit into goods that can be used or returned for cash or otherwise realise real money from the fake notes.  That could involve working with an insider at a bank or a retail outlet where there would be considerable cash flow. Most contributors however used them at retail level by selecting a plausible target and time of day to buy small value items with a large note. Users selected targets according to their judgment on whether the note would be accepted. Some split targets by denomination, using $20s and $50s in busy outlets, or buying more $100s when they were confident the note quality and the target merited it. In their discussion the buyers mentioned how they slipped the counterfeits into the supply chain. Their varied tactics were aimed at laundering bad notes into good. Buying a small value item with $50 or $100 notes and obtaining change would do that. However there was a risk that cashiers would be more likely to scrutinise or refuse large value notes for small value items. Another route to actualisation was buying easily cashable tokens such as money cards.

A labour structure was in evidence in some cases. Most buyers used the notes as individuals. One buyer claimed to be running a larger operation with a team who would spend the notes. There was a sense that these were not major players and would be buying small amounts to use in ways that would not attract attention.

They discussed various failures and how to exit the scene after notes were rejected. None reported the police being called in response to an attempt to use fake notes.

Give a feel for the process: A skill promoted was the ability to work the notes into a consistent product, using the inevitably variable supply provided by Benjamin to produce something consistently workable:

My only issue now is that this batch was different then the last one, not because of quality but because Ink clearly did something wrong to the paper, personally I shut the fuck up and just fixed it myself by putting them in water like I said before, but some people just think they should get supernotes in the mail and not have to touch anything because they are really petty customers, so in your best interest Ink we think you should fix

Linking both ends together: Material skills were in evidence. Working the notes showed how the physical qualities of the notes were seen as features that had to be enacted in practice, through a combination of the ability of the buyer to work the notes into plausible currency, select the right target and approach in the right way. The combination of technique and technology came together to enact the counterfeit currency as a technology applied to a specific situation. In that sense the currency is only enacted in place.

Discussion

Remind the reader of the context: Distribution of counterfeit currency in this way is an example of a hybrid crime combining online distribution of the product and offline implementation of the crime, actually using the notes in a fraudulent way. The script required understanding the meta-criminal context in which Benjamin and the users operated. Benjamin was a secondary vendor for a primary note producer. Therefore they had to manage both their supply and manage expectations within the darknet community about the effectiveness of the notes. Benjamin’s second stage role meant they could palm off some of the responsibility for poor quality product onto the supplier but still needed to maintain a reasonably high hit rate among their customers. It was vital in order to keep selling the notes that users reported success with them. This is not an unusual element of digital crime. Some organisations have guides and helplines for both associates and victims in order to ensure the script goes smoothly, allowing for negation between victim and offender (Hernandez-Castro, Cartwright, and Stepanova 2017). A further analysis is invited which treats the counterfeit notes as part of a criminal assemblage. In this perspective the discourse around it, the production and distribution system, is part of a set of practices that produce the product as a workable entity.

Fit it into the literature: Though cryptomarkets focus on drug distribution some attempt to branch out into sales of weapons, counterfeit cigarettes and other goods such as counterfeit currency. This example shows that the system can be adapted so that the cryptomarket takes over the last mile of counterfeit distribution, and also the problems adapting the cryptomarket verification and quality control systems to a very different product. The community had great difficulty verifying the quality of the notes and had a single point of failure in the person of Benjamin, making it much less resilient than the section of the cryptomarket dealing in illicit drugs.

Size the issue: Overall the counterfeit trade in the cryptomarkets is fragile compared to the drug trade, as many participants recognised in their discussions. Another reason for the lack of resilience was the limited profit to be gained. Notes sell for 50% of face value. Therefore most profit is made in the production/distribution phases. When users take into account risk and the expense of crime commission the likely profit is much less than the theoretical profit of using counterfeit notes. Profits are further reduced if the user needs to employ others and share profits as part of their business model.

Talking about limits shows how the findings can be adapted in other contexts: The context limits some inferences that can be drawn. Participants do not disclose their country of operation. The darknet can be accessed from many countries, though it is difficult to access it from China. Data show most darknet use takes place in European, North America and Australia and the language/tone of the participants indicate they are based in the USA. References to the Federal Reserve and the fact they are using dollars in retail transactions indicates they are American. What is missing? There are a number of dark players in the cryptomarkets. The administrators and moderators govern who gets to create an account. They can ban accounts though a persistent hostile user can easily recreate another. Benjamin’s crime script is oriented towards his or her actions in the forum and there is a missing part to it, their relationship with their supplier.

What’s new/different? The cryptomarket provides a space for discussion and a hub for distribution.  The counterfeit vendors/users employ an adaptable crime script. There is more variation in the buyers’ script. Benjamin’s script is constrained by the quality of the product available and the willingness of the buyers to pay for and use it. To an extent the group as a whole worked on developing their crime script through comparing different experiences with using the notes, their opinions on their technical qualities, and advice about how to successfully use them without being detected. In this way what mattered to them became apparent. The technical qualities of the notes were a means to an end: their ability to use them successfully and then use the knowledge gained to buy more. Successful repeat use was vital in order to make any kind of return, which was why consistent supply was so important to them. New context: insertion of market forum into crime script development and adaption. Discussion forums are critical in criminal evolution and innovation and we can also include other media such as Telegram channels in this. Users hybridise different modes to produce a workable modus operandi.

Why technology matters in one sense: The forum has certain technological affordances that matter. It is an example of a self-generated hierarchy. Why technology matters in another sense, and why we need to modify what we understand by crimetech: the notes have to be worked in different stages to make them plausible to different audiences, from the buyer to the target. That goes from batching to distribution, prepared for use and then distributed. Both Benjamin and the buyers treated the notes they received. Crime is embodied as craft work, recognising the personal, emotional labour that has to be involved in crime commission.

Finesse existing theory: The organisational context and the character of the criminal relationship is quite limited as Bejnamin has no control over the buyers so this relationship is voluntary. In comparison money mules are sometimes coerced through threats or debt relationships [ref]. The character of the crime is one of mutual exchange. It can be understood in terms of an dapted rational choice theory, but with added recognition of positionality/identity as motivating factors, materiality. Both vendor and buyer morally orient themselves to each other and the crime itself. ‘Rational’ is often drawn narrowly in terms of interests and should include the person’s identification of their own moral positioning in relation to the criminal activity, their motivation.

What can I infer? Both Ink and the buyers engage in innovation and fine tuning of their crime scripts. For Ink, reputation management and playing the role of the vendor willing to learn and respond to their critics is a key part of maintaining their status. For the buyers, they discuss how to successfully make use of the currency, avoid incurring legal liability while adapting to potential surveillance conditions.

Conclusion

What are the consequences of this paper (and I’d better rethink the title now): I have argued that understanding the crime script in this context is something supported by the community as a social organization and also as a material structure enacted through craft practices. As a consequence, intervention might consider taking place at the level of craft labour. There is a great degree of tacit knowledge involved in criminal enterprises. Crime script analysis tends to focus on the technical steps which foregrounds a rational choice approach when it comes to attacking the incentive structure. This analysis shows how reputation and plausibility are crucial elements at different stages, and the labour needed to achieve them.

Acknowledgements

For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.

References

Bank of England. 2022. ‘Counterfeit Banknotes’. Retrieved 7 June 2022 (https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/counterfeit-banknotes).

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. 2021. The Fed – Money Stock Measures – H.6 Release – December 28, 2021. Washington, D.C.: The Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington DC.

Chainey, Spencer P., and Arantza Alonso Berbotto. 2021. ‘A Structured Methodical Process for Populating a Crime Script of Organized Crime Activity Using OSINT’. Trends in Organized Crime. doi: 10.1007/s12117-021-09428-9.

Chant, John F. 2004. ‘The Canadian Experience with Counterfeiting’. 14.

Dehghanniri, Hashem, and Hervé Borrion. 2016. ‘Toward a More Structured Crime Scripting Method’. Pp. 94–97 in 2016 IEEE 24th International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW).

Dittus, Martin, Joss Wright, and Mark Graham. 2017. ‘Platform Criminalism: The “Last-Mile” Geography of the Darknet Market Supply Chain’. Pp. 277–86 in WWW ’18: Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference. Geneva: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee.

Felson, Marcus. 2006. ‘THE ECOSYSTEM FOR ORGANIZED CRIME’. P. 20 in HEUNI 25th Anniversary Lecture. Helsinki.

Felson, Marcus. 2009. ‘The Natural History of Extended Co-Offending’. Trends in Organized Crime 12(2):159–65. doi: 10.1007/s12117-008-9056-7.

Hernandez-Castro, Julio, Edward Cartwright, and Anna Stepanova. 2017. ‘Economic Analysis of Ransomware’. ArXiv:1703.06660 [Cs].

Hine, Christine. 2015. Ethnography for the Internet: Embedded, Embodied and Everyday. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Holt, Thomas J., and Jin R. Lee. 2020. ‘A Crime Script Analysis of Counterfeit Identity Document Procurement Online’. Deviant Behavior 1–18. doi: 10.1080/01639625.2020.1825915.

Judson, Ruth, and Richard Porter. 2003. Estimating the Worldwide Volume of Counterfeit U.S. Currency: Data and Extrapolation. Washington, D.C.: Division of Monetary Affairs Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Kahn, Charles M., and William Roberds. 2008. ‘Credit and Identity Theft’. Journal of Monetary Economics 55(2):251–64.

Krebs. 2014. ‘Fun With Funny Money – Krebs on Security’. Retrieved 27 January 2022 (https://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/09/fun-with-funny-money/).

Lemon, Alaina. 1998. ‘“Your Eyes Are Green like Dollars”: Counterfeit Cash, National Substance, and Currency Apartheid in 1990s Russia’. Cultural Anthropology 13(1):22–55. doi: 10.1525/can.1998.13.1.22.

Li, Yiting, and Guillaume Rocheteau. 2011. ‘On the Threat of Counterfeiting’. Macroeconomic Dynamics 15(S1):10–41.

Reserve Bank of India. 2019. Annual Report 2019. Delhi.

Reserve Bank of India. 2022. Annual Report 2022.

Tompson, Lisa, and Spencer Chainey. 2011. ‘Profiling Illegal Waste Activity: Using Crime Scripts as a Data Collection and Analytical Strategy’. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 17(3):179–201. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10610-011-9146-y.

Van Nguyen, Trong. 2021. ‘The Modus Operandi of Transnational Computer Fraud: A Crime Script Analysis in Vietnam’. Trends in Organized Crime 1–22. doi: 10.1007/s12117-021-09422-1.

Wang, Yujie. 2020. ‘Effect of Demonetization on India’s Financial Sector’. Pp. 308–11 in. Atlantis Press.

Cultural accounts of illicit markets and criminal activities are the best way to develop a feel for them. Here are my recommendations:

Podcasts

Some of the most insightful sociology is done in economics, so Planet Money is my go to for understanding how the economy shapes our lives. Episodes on illegal markets in avocados, sand, eco-crimes and various other shady stuff, as well as the bigger picture on supply chains, blockchains, and the effects of the financialisation of everything. The show as a whole offers mind shifting insights into why the world fits together in the way it does.

Hot Money: Who Rules Porn? studies the emergence and consolidation of the modern porn industry.

Deep Cover: Mob Land tells of undercover cops and dangerous lives.

The Cryptoqueen is an engaging documentary about a cryptocurrency scam/MLM scheme. It doesn’t skimp on describing the harms caused .

… or possibly it will make you feel very much worse. Not sure. But I think you need to know this.

Discussing with research students about the many troubles of PhD life we often come back to a disagreement or misunderstanding about what a PhD is. So I want to fix that now:

A PhD is a series of research or real world problems and hypotheses around a central theme that you want to live with and examine. It starts and ends with the questions: What is this topic/thing, what happens with it, why does it matter, and to what/whom?

These are the only questions ever studied in academia. Every other research question ever asked is a take on one of these. So as long as you have  or will end up with some kind of answer to each of those, you will be fine. The rest of your academic career can be elaborating on those and that is a very nice, happy way to live out your life. Academic discussion involves asking the same question in many different ways.

To be accepted as a PhD the thesis and viva need to meet the following challenges as laid out in the University regulations which I’m sure we have all read:

‘Grounds for the Award of Doctoral and MPhil Research Degrees: Demonstration by Thesis and Oral Exam for the Award of PhD

The student must demonstrate by the presentation of a thesis and/or portfolio, and by performance at an oral examination: • capability of pursuing original research making a significant contribution to knowledge or understanding in the field of study; • adequate knowledge of the field of study and relevant literature; • exercise of critical judgement with regard to both the student’s work and that of other scholars in the same general field, relating particular research projects to the general body of knowledge in the field; and • the ability to present the results of the research in a critical and scholarly way. The thesis must: • represent a coherent body of work; and • contain a significant amount of material worthy of publication or public presentation.’ (italics are mine)

As above, these questions are all angles on the same central question: is the PhD an original work of scholarship with an identifiable contribution to make. Reading the above it sounds like a tall order. But look closely at some of the language which I have italicised. When I examine a PhD I look for the capability of pursuing original research and making a significant contribution. I look for whether there is material that is worthy of being published. I do not ask that the PhD has made a significant contribution already, or that you have published already. If you have published or are nearing publication by the time of the viva, that’s awesome – box ticked, I won’t even have to read the thing now. Score. All of these questions are about showing potential in the PhD – the potential for good research, good scholarship, showing where you belong in the academic mind map.

Now follows some top secret info which you must guard with your very life. You do not have to meet all of these criteria immediately on submission of the thesis. Plenty of PhDs that go on to be awarded and that are of a high standard have weaknesses or uncertainties around one or more of these questions. That is why we have a viva, so we can question whether you recognise that and if you are likely to go and fix it. After the viva we give recommendations on work that needs to be done to correct any problems identified, as long as it looks like you recognise the issue and are likely to have a good go at correcting it.

So your research/work plan should be structured around the words I have highlighted above.

1. Show the capability of pursuing original research and material worthy of publication. Where do you learn about and show you can use methods during your PhD? What is the research material, the stuff that you gather, which could make it into a published paper – that could be data, it might be theorising about an issue, it could be a review of methods? Out of the many ways you could have researched this topic, what led you to choose these ones?
2.  Produce adequate knowledge about the field of study. What research and theory are you reviewing, what questions are you asking and what conclusions are you drawing? One question is ‘how do academics talk about and define my thing?’. Like many other ontological questions I don’t even think there is a ‘best’ or ‘final’ definition, because the object being defined is itself contingent, changeable etc. You just have to show you know how they discuss it.
3. Where in the PhD are you exercising critical judgement and about what? What baseline assumptions are made by yourself and others that need to be put into play? Where do you talk about the limits of yours and others’ perspectives on the issue?
4. In your writing how do you show the ability to present the results and represent a coherent body of work. The best way to do this is to actually present the results and show how those other questions – What is this topic/thing, what happens with it, why does it matter, and to what/whom? – link up in your imagination.

The best way to meet these challenges is to show you have done them by producing a coherent body of work with original research. A PhD is a map of the potential contained in the topic, in you. That is all we want. That potential is boundless. Never be afraid to show it on your own terms. And if you want, to be the world shattering magnum opus it deserves to be.

Yes, absolutely, all the time, 100%, this is what you are here for, you must be prepared to do this and you wouldn’t be doing your job if you didn’t. Don’t pretend that you do not, and that you do not secretly think you know better than the people you are speaking for, nor that you are not selecting by definition from a vast galaxy of lived experiences and picking out some and not others.

There is a vogue for recounting lived experience as if it is the final word on everything, a sacred pure essence which can remain uncontaminated. Lived experience is used to mean people’s self-recounted experiences. I’ll skip over the obvious problems – we change our perspectives on our lives all the time, some entities are independent of lived experience but matter to it, some people are better placed to articulate themselves, we mistake smooth narratives for social reality, you are always selecting according to some criteria and cannot present ‘raw’ data without choosing.

I tackle this one because of how good many researchers are at getting to the experiences of people normally ignored or silenced, and the range of creative methods they have developed to do it. And we do that because it matters, and because it is not raw data. I am arguing that you cannot centre lived experience as the overriding explanatory account that you give. Placing lived experience at the absolute centre is contradictory. It is useless to pretend that society does not quash some experiences and over amplify others. It is then strange to think that the fact of that happening does not affect how people account for and understand their own experiences.

Case: If you poll women and ask each respondent if she has ever experienced rape you used to get a relatively low-ish number saying yes. For years researchers reported that rape was uncommon. Turns out, if you ask women ‘has someone ever made you have sex when you didn’t want to’ or an equivalent characterisation of forced/unwanted sex that does not use the word ‘rape’ (Koss, 1985), a much higher proportion say yes. I would only be asking the second question if I thought that the answer they were agreeing to described rape even if they did not think that, and even if the law did not acknowledge it as such either, as was the case for a long time for rape within marriage. I am putting my interpretation in place of their lived experience and the socially normative definition.

I am saying that there is an essence to that category which encompasses experiences that those involved do not necessarily acknowledge in the same way. I am placing my ontology well ahead of their lived experience. Well maybe that is a bad example, because why should people agree on what goes into all categories and taxonomies.

As Koss (2011) notes though, pushback against her research recognising unacknowledged rape took the form of prioritising lived experience, and critics argued that those like her who reported this data were inflating the issue and making women look like perma-victims. What about their lived experience, eh? The critics sometimes made another point, that including many more cases into the category of rape tended to deflate it, so they were also appealing to an idea that there was a true, valid category of rape that existed before this research was done. When you think about it that is a slightly odd argument, that rape only becomes bad if it is special and unique. Which is sort of the point Koss was making. Rape is ordinary in the lives of women.

There is no getting away from it. Many vital questions would be impossible without it: why do you feel that way, why do you select from this experience and not what one, what’s the relationship between your self concept and your life context, and what if anything do we need to do about it. These all matter to our lives and we cannot be prevented from asking them.

I used to teach my students that they had to get the unit of analysis right and everything in their research design would flow from that. It is always important to avoid category errors but especially here. The example I used was if the unit of analysis was opinion. Institutions like universities do not have opinions, individuals do. Institutions have policies, a different category. If they want opinions, they then need to sample individuals. It appeared to be ridiculous to expect a university to have an opinion. A university can have a policy supporting students who have English as their second language, but cannot have an opinion on the Quad’s influence in the Pacific region. Lately however universities, corporations and government departments have tried to pretend that they can and do have opinions, usually ones that are popular and memeable.

Doing so means flatting the varied stances of the individuals who make up the institution which is why the opinions tend to be bland statements of The Nice. Separating out categories for analysis matters as not doing so causes a lot of confusion. To take one example, the current ‘We are more than a faceless corporation intent on shoving your hopes and dreams into the data grinder’ discourse seems keen on celebrating identity. Yet not everything is or can be an identity. Trans, gay, neuro-divergent, working class, British-Asian, female: all are very different in nature and your job if you are using any identity category is to work out the difference, what it might look like from the perspective of those concerned, and what elements of it are grounded in which material, physical and social structures. Is it other defined or self assigned would be the first question to ask. The ultimate aim is always working out what aspects of the world matter to people, why and how, and if we should or can do anything about them.

Let us take a look at the work you have to do in order that your research design gives the best account of reality possible. It should be grounded, sensitive to relevant distinctions, and carve reality at the right joints. The ‘carving reality at the joints’ metaphor is a good one because it infers you are only taking the right bits, and also because the history of carving humans at their joints should alert us to the blind alleys you can easily wander into. For example, for years the clitoris was thought to take one, very limited form, in part because of a failure to consider women’s bodies as anything other than weaker, inward turned versions of male bodies.

The clitoris has a wholly different structure than thought and is far more extensive than had been assumed. As an aside, I do not see how you can examine the anatomical history of women’s bodies without acknowledging that one version is more correct than another, and that knowledge has at times been confused or suppressed due to fear and loathing of women’s bodies. The conclusions drawn are not just arbitrary social constructions mixing up bio and social phenomena. That does not mean knowledge of women’s sexual and pleasure anatomy is complete, but we can say one understanding is better than another. Even better, it is the one that manages to recognise women as autonomous human beings – win! This brings us onto some crucial distinctions we need to get right: what is the unit of analysis and what is the unit of observation? Both these two need to link clearly.

The unit of analysis is the quality of the entity being reported on, and the unit of observation the unit-data type being aggregated. In the above case the unit of analysis could be women’s sexual function, and the unit of observation the clitoris. The reason for the multi-millenia ignorance about the clitoris might be assumed to be because the unit of analysis should have been women’s sexual pleasure but was not, and also because anatomy as a science had trouble with an organ that did not immediately appear as a clearly distinct whole. In fact, women’s sexual pleasure has been studied throughout medical history going back many centuries, usually as something mysterious and complicated: there just seems to have been a taboo around taking the clitoris seriously. Another study might take the unit of analysis to be women’s sexual satisfaction, and attempt to correlate variations in clitoral anatomy to degrees of reported sexual pleasure (hopefully there would be hypotheses driving these fictional studies rather than just ‘let’s see what happens’ but I know how you all think). The unit of observation would then be individual women or potentially women in different relationship types. Very different, but not unrelated, data types are needed. They connect because they are related questions.

I am going to stick with the anatomy metaphor because I like it. From these two elements, unit of analysis and unit of observation, we get the reality bag of tricks, your methodological dissection instruments with which you divide and reassemble your object of study. They are called ‘research methods’ because you need to be methodical with them. The ones you use and the way you use them are dependent on those two baseline assumptions, so it is worth taking the time to get them right.

Charlier, Philippe, Saudamini Deo, and Antonio Perciaccante. “A brief history of the clitoris.” Archives of Sexual Behavior49.1 (2020): 47-48.

I often say to students ‘describe, then analyse’. Well, how do you know which one you are doing and what the difference between them is? And while we’re about it, what’s the difference between method and methodology, hmmm? There is really no fundamental difference. Description always involves a choice of terms in which to describe, and these are analytical choices. Analysis is just being aware of those choices, understanding that some choices have been made for you before you even start, then deciding what elements to focus on, and drawing connections between cases in order to make inferences. Analysis is therefore that ability to connect the description to a category or process that tells you about it, and being aware of the context in which it is produced.

For example, I research banknote counterfeiting. One aspect of that is looking at how banks and tellers detect counterfeits. A start to that is by describing the equipment used (e.g. ultraviolet lamps) and then the process (the different kinds of examination notes undergo). Analysis is looking at what informs the design of those technologies and processes. One ground level assumption everyone works with is that there is an objective way to tell the difference once and for all. Analysis looks at what effect these assumptions have in the world. For example, if tellers are held responsible for accepting counterfeits then that shifts the responsibility from the designer to the lowest level human in the process. That tells us about who has power over money. We can then say a lot more about how cash notes fit into the economy as part of a whole process based on distributing trust and responsibility. We might also look at the changing design of notes as partly symbolic, incorporating banal nationalism at some stages, and also about shifting understandings of the role of cash and money in the economy.

The design of the Euro notes gives new meaning to both. The semiotics are significant. They are intentionally banal. Each country is only represented in the serial numbers of the notes, and the images uses are intended not to refer to anything real that might get people hot under the collar. You can compare those notes to others that intend to communicate stability and reliability, or seek to say something about the nation they represent. Finland’s markka notes designed by Eliel Saarinen are a lovely example of aspirational nationalist modernism at a time when Finnish national consciousness was starting to cohere around national independence. Scammers faked the Finnish markka and in one genius instance made a 20 markka note into a non existent 2000 mark note by the simple means of adding two zeros to the face number. While that wouldn’t have fooled a lot of Finns it might have worked when exchanging the notes abroad.

The security features also are semiotic: the signal trust, but also have to perform practically. They need to be readable to the human eye and sensitive to touch, to make them quickly recognisable. We can then ask what this tells us about the notes as circulating media or as stores of value, the intended rapidity of their circulation and how the designers understand where they will be exchanged.

Analysis then leads us to further questions. Do central banks plan there to be a perfectly unfakeable note? How do fake notes affect people’s faith in money? Do times of hyperinflation or deflation change this relationship? How does computer fraud change the faith people put in digital versus physical currency? How does the creation of automatic transaction terminals such as supermarket customer checkout systems shift the equation? Increasingly we look at currency and payment as a closed system, which alters what we understand cash to be. Cash can operate as something valued independently of its ‘face value’. For example, in Russia during 1992 there was a shortage of small value 15-kopek pieces used for payphones, so they began changing hands for much more (Lemon, 1998). Likewise, drug dealers in parts of the USA refused to accept one dollar bills, so local shops made a lively trade selling 10 dollar bills to drug users for 11 one dollar bills.

Analysis also helps us tell the difference between banally obvious statements that still need to be made (e.g. that every banknote is an act of faith) and propositions that can be tested (e.g. people automatically have more trust in higher value notes). Just in case anyone things I am ragging on cash, cryptocurrency is worse (Bratspies, 2018).

We often think of description as mundane and concrete and analysis as showy and abstract. The reverse is true. Every act of description is an act of creation, and every act of analysis brings that creation back to earth.

<img> ‘Motherfuckin’ Critcal Thinking – How does that work?InsaneClownPosse.jpg'</img>

A regular comment on students’ work from essays to PhD drafts is that they could improve by adopting a more critical perspective. Martin Booker explores it very effectively in his blog, Critical Turkey. He defines it as common-sense scepticism plus social science analysis. Critical thinking is at heart about developing your voice on the topic and finding what matters within it. It is evaluative, considered and objective. It minimuses what we have to take as read and maximises persuasion through argumentation. Should be simple, right?

So what can we tell students to actually do to get there? What tasks can they incorporate into their thinking? My answer is that you do this by asking questions of the topic. Robert Ennis (1993) lays out a combination of activities, abilities and stances that we look for as evidence of critical thinking: ‘1. Judge the credibility of sources. 2. Identify conclusions, reasons, and assumptions. 3. Judge the quality of an argument, including the acceptability of its reasons, assumptions, and evidence. 4. Develop and defend a position on an issue. 5. Ask appropriate clarifying questions. 6. Plan experiments and judge experimental designs 7. Define terms in a way appropriate for the context. 8. Be open-minded. 9. Try to be well informed. 10. Draw conclusions when warranted, but with caution’. These roughly divide into: develop your own position from the evidence, be aware of what you are saying and and assess claims independently of what is in front of you. Critical thinking is also traceable. Yourself and your readers can grasp why you arrived at your argument because you lay out the evidence trail that took you there.

In this post I drill down further to set out some tasks students can add to their toolkit and which show critical thinking at work.

Feb 13, 2022