Reflection Essay: My Journey Through Interdisciplinary Cybersecurity
IDS 493: Electronic Portfolio Project Old Dominion University May 2026
Abstract
This reflection essay examines my growth as a cybersecurity student at Old Dominion University. It looks at three core skills I built during my degree. These skills are technical security and threat analysis, risk management and compliance, and communication and technical writing. The essay reviews nine artifacts from my coursework and work experience that prove these skills. It also reflects on what I learned in IDS 300W and how interdisciplinary thinking shaped my view of cybersecurity. The essay shows that cybersecurity is not just a technical field. It is a field that pulls from law, ethics, policy, communication, and computer science. My experience at Allied Universal as a SOC Analyst connects directly to my classroom learning. Together, these experiences prepared me for a career in cybersecurity. The essay closes with a discussion of where I am headed and why interdisciplinary thinking matters in this field.
Introduction
When I began college, I did not know what I wanted to study. I tried different paths and none of them felt right. Then I took my first cybersecurity course. Something clicked. I learned that cybersecurity is not one thing. It is many fields working together. It pulls from computer science, law, ethics, policy, business, and communication. This blend is what kept me hooked.
My degree at Old Dominion University taught me that cybersecurity professionals must think across disciplines. Repko and Szostak (2020) explain that interdisciplinary studies bring multiple fields together to solve problems that no single field can solve alone. Cybersecurity fits this idea perfectly. A breach is never just a technical problem. It is also a legal issue, a policy issue, a human issue, and a business issue. To solve these problems, future professionals must learn to think across boundaries.
Through courses like CS 463 Cryptography for Cybersecurity, CYSE 425 Cyber Strategy and Policy, CYSE 526 Cyber War, PHIL 355E Cybersecurity Ethics, and IDS 300W, I built three skills I rely on every day. These skills are technical security and threat analysis, risk management and compliance, and communication and technical writing. Each skill is supported by three artifacts that show what I have learned. This essay walks through those skills and artifacts. It also reflects on the lessons I picked up while building this portfolio and what interdisciplinary thinking means to me now.
Skill One: Technical Security and Threat Analysis
The first skill I built is technical security and threat analysis. Job ads for SOC Analyst and Cybersecurity Analyst roles list this skill at the top. Employers want people who can monitor systems, spot threats, and respond fast. They want people who understand how attackers think. They also want people who can use tools like Wireshark, SIEM platforms, and packet analyzers. I built this skill through coursework and through real work in the field.
Artifact 1: Privacy-Preserving Machine Learning Using Fully Homomorphic Encryption
This paper came from CS 463 Cryptography for Cybersecurity. It reviews how Fully Homomorphic Encryption protects data during computation. Writing this paper pushed me into deep technical territory. I had to understand lattice-based math, ciphertext operations, and how schemes like CKKS and BFV work in real systems (Gentry, 2009). I also had to study how libraries like Microsoft SEAL make this technology usable for developers (Chen et al., 2017).
The hardest part was breaking down complex math into clear language. I had to read peer-reviewed sources and turn them into a paper that flowed. This taught me that technical depth means nothing if you cannot explain it. The paper also connected to my work as a SOC Analyst. Encryption is the backbone of secure communication. Knowing how it works at a deep level helps me understand why we protect data the way we do.
Artifact 2: CIQ Journal Module 6
This artifact is a short reflection from CS 463. In it, I admitted I felt confused when learning about private keys. I also noted I was surprised by how much math the course required. I wrote that I understood the Euclidean algorithm after some struggle. This artifact may seem small, but it shows something important. It shows that I can reflect on my own learning. Schön (1983) calls this “reflection-in-action.” It is the skill of thinking about your work while you do it. This habit helps me grow as a professional. In cybersecurity, the field changes fast. The people who admit what they do not know are the ones who keep learning (Crumpler & Lewis, 2019).
Artifact 3: SOC Analyst Work Experience at Allied Universal
My third artifact for this skill is my real-world work as a SOC Analyst. I monitor surveillance systems, intrusion alarms, and life-safety platforms. I use tools like Pro Watch, Skidata, and Wireshark. I respond to incidents in real time. I write more than 45 incident reports each month. Each report has to hold up under legal review.
This work taught me lessons no classroom could teach. I learned how to stay calm during alarms. I learned how to coordinate with law enforcement. I learned that real security work is messy. Things do not happen in clean order like they do in textbooks. The National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education framework lists threat detection and incident response as two core work roles for SOC professionals (Newhouse et al., 2017). My work at Allied Universal hits both.
Skill Two: Risk Management and Compliance
The second skill I built is risk management and compliance. Cybersecurity is not just about stopping attacks. It is also about understanding rules, frameworks, and policies that shape how organizations protect themselves. Entry-level GRC and risk analyst roles list NIST, ISO 27001, and policy analysis as required knowledge. I built this skill through three courses that pushed me to think about cybersecurity at a strategic level.
Artifact 4: Policy Paper 4 on Cybersecurity Culture, Strategy, and Generative AI
This paper came from CYSE 425 Cyber Strategy and Policy. It analyzed the 2023 U.S. National Cybersecurity Strategy and how that strategy shapes organizational culture. The paper also examined how Generative AI changes the picture. Writing it forced me to read government documents and understand how national policy reaches private companies (The White House, 2023). I learned that policies are not just rules. They are tools that shape how people behave at work.
The biggest lesson from this paper was that compliance is a culture issue, not just a checklist. NIST guidance shows that strong cybersecurity culture comes from leadership, training, and clear expectations (NIST, 2023). I now see compliance as something living, not something static.
Artifact 5: Is Cyberspace Being Militarized?
This research paper came from CYSE 526 Cyber War. It looked at whether cyberspace is becoming a domain of war. I reviewed work by experts like Dunn Cavelty (2012), Sandvik (2012), and Egloff (2023). I learned that international law was built for physical war and struggles to fit cyber conflict. I also learned how attribution problems and dual-use tools complicate digital warfare (Reinhold, Pleil, & Reuter, 2023).
This paper showed me how risk operates at the national level. A risk to one country can spill across borders. A single attack on a power grid can affect millions. Writing this paper pushed me to think about risk on a much bigger scale than I was used to. It also helped me understand why nations build cyber units and why arms control is so hard in this space (Foulon, 2024).
Artifact 6: Going Dark Discussion Board
This artifact came from PHIL 355E Cybersecurity Ethics. The discussion focused on former FBI Director James Comey’s argument that strong encryption creates “unreachable spaces” for law enforcement. In my response, I argued that weakening encryption for “good guys” creates risks for everyone. I also pointed to how the EU protects strong encryption while Australia and India have pushed for backdoors with mixed results.
This artifact taught me that compliance is not the same in every country. It also taught me that ethics, law, and security do not always agree. Floridi (2013) writes that information ethics requires balancing many values at once. That is exactly what the encryption debate forces us to do. Building good policy means weighing public safety, civil rights, and technical reality together.
Skill Three: Communication and Technical Writing
The third skill I built is communication and technical writing. Hiring managers in cybersecurity often complain that technical staff cannot write well or explain things clearly (Crumpler & Lewis, 2019). This is a real problem. A SOC Analyst who cannot write a clean incident report is not useful. A security expert who cannot explain risk to a non-technical leader cannot drive change. I built this skill through writing-heavy courses and through writing real reports at work.
Artifact 7: Personal Narrative Essay
My personal narrative essay sits on the home page of this portfolio. It tells the story of how I came to cybersecurity from Alexandria, Virginia, as a first-generation college student. Writing this piece was harder than I expected. It is one thing to write technical papers. It is another to tell your own story in a way that feels honest. I had to find a voice that was professional but still personal.
This artifact shows that I can communicate beyond just technical topics. Narrative identity is a real concept in academic writing. McAdams (2011) explains that people understand themselves through the stories they tell. Writing this essay helped me see my own path more clearly. It also gave me something I can share with future employers and recruiters.
Artifact 8: IDS 300W Author Insights Table and Disciplinary Analysis
This artifact came from IDS 300W. The assignment asked me to compare authors from different disciplines on a shared topic and pull out where they agreed, disagreed, and where they brought different lenses. Doing this work changed how I read sources. I started to see writing not as one voice but as a conversation between many voices.
Repko and Szostak (2020) explain that interdisciplinary research depends on integrating perspectives from multiple fields. The author insights work made this real for me. I now read every cybersecurity paper with this mindset. I look for what discipline the writer comes from. I look for the assumptions hiding in the work. This habit makes me a better reader, a better writer, and a better thinker (Klein, 2010).
Artifact 9: Cyber Strategy Policy Paper Visualization and Communication
For this third communication artifact, I am pointing back to the visualization section of my CYSE 425 Policy Paper 4. In that paper, I built a simple model that connected national strategy, organizational culture, and Generative AI. I had to take complex ideas and turn them into a clear visual that any reader could follow. This was hard. Visualization in cybersecurity is its own skill. Tufte (2001) explains that good visuals reveal patterns the reader cannot see in text alone.
This artifact shows that I can communicate not just in words but in design. Cybersecurity professionals often have to brief leaders who do not have time to read a full report. A clear chart or diagram can carry the message faster. Building this skill prepares me to brief executives one day.
Reflections on Building This Portfolio and Interdisciplinary Thinking
Building this portfolio was harder than I thought it would be. Pulling together work from many different classes forced me to look at my degree as a whole. I had to ask myself what I had really learned and what I could prove. At first, I struggled to see the threads that connected my courses. A cryptography paper and a cyber war essay felt like they came from different worlds. But as I worked through the artifacts, I started to see how they fit. Every piece touched on the same core idea. Cybersecurity is about protecting people, systems, and information in a world where threats keep changing.
IDS 300W was the course that taught me to think this way. It introduced me to the interdisciplinary research process and the idea that real problems do not respect academic boundaries. Repko and Szostak (2020) write that interdisciplinary thinking starts when a problem is too big or too messy for one field to solve. Cybersecurity is exactly that kind of problem. A SOC Analyst needs to understand technology, but also law, ethics, business, and human behavior. Without all of these, the analyst cannot do the job well (Newhouse et al., 2017).
The portfolio process also taught me about narrative identity. McAdams (2011) explains that we make sense of our lives by telling our own stories. Writing my personal narrative pushed me to look at my path. I could see how being a first-generation college student, working in real security roles during school, and studying across disciplines all came together. The portfolio is not just a record of my work. It is the story of who I am becoming as a professional.
Looking at cybersecurity now compared to when I started college, my view has changed. I once thought it was about firewalls and hackers. I now see it as a field that touches every part of modern life. Mathur (2025) writes that digital systems shape global power. Foulon (2024) notes that cyber competition shapes diplomacy itself. These ideas were not on my radar when I started. They are now. This shift in thinking is the gift of an interdisciplinary education.
Conclusion
This reflection has walked through the three skills I built during my degree at Old Dominion University. Technical security and threat analysis came from courses like CS 463 and from real work as a SOC Analyst. Risk management and compliance came from CYSE 425, CYSE 526, and PHIL 355E. Communication and technical writing came from IDS 300W, CYSE 425, and the personal writing I did for this portfolio. Together, these skills prepare me for a career as a cybersecurity professional.
Interdisciplinary thinking is the thread that ties everything together. Cybersecurity is not a single discipline. It is a meeting place for many fields. Repko and Szostak (2020) call this kind of thinking the future of problem-solving. Klein (2010) argues that complex global problems demand interdisciplinary minds. I now see that my degree gave me more than technical skills. It gave me a way of thinking that will serve me for my whole career.
I will graduate in May 2026. After that, I plan to grow into a full cybersecurity role. I am open to many paths, including SOC Analyst at a larger enterprise, GRC analyst, or incident response. What I know for sure is that I will keep learning. The threats will keep changing. The field will keep growing. I am ready for it because my degree prepared me to think across disciplines, communicate clearly, and act with judgment under pressure.
References
Chen, H., Laine, K., & Player, R. (2017). Simple encrypted arithmetic library – SEAL v2.1. Microsoft Research. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/microsoft-seal/
Crumpler, W., & Lewis, J. A. (2019). The cybersecurity workforce gap. Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/cybersecurity-workforce-gap
Dunn Cavelty, M. (2012). The militarisation of cyberspace: Why less may be better. In C. Czosseck, R. Ottis, & K. Ziolkowski (Eds.), 2012 4th International Conference on Cyber Conflict (pp. 141–153). NATO CCD COE Publications.
Egloff, F. J. (2023). The better angels of our digital nature? Offensive cyber capabilities and state violence. European Journal of International Security, 8(3), 256–276. https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2023.13
Floridi, L. (2013). The ethics of information. Oxford University Press.
Foulon, M. (2024). The evolution of cyber conflict studies. International Affairs, 100(6), 2317–2334. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiad070
Gentry, C. (2009). Fully homomorphic encryption using ideal lattices. Proceedings of the 41st Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1145/1536414.1536440
Klein, J. T. (2010). Creating interdisciplinary campus cultures: A model for strength and sustainability. Jossey-Bass.
Mathur, R. (2025). Techno-capitalism and weaponization of cyberspace. Global Studies Quarterly, 5(2), ksaf031. https://doi.org/10.1093/isagsq/ksaf031
McAdams, D. P. (2011). Narrative identity. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 99–115). Springer.
National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Cybersecurity framework guidance and best practices. U.S. Department of Commerce.
Newhouse, W., Keith, S., Scribner, B., & Witte, G. (2017). NIST Special Publication 800-181: National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) Cybersecurity Workforce Framework. National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-181
Reinhold, T., Pleil, H., & Reuter, C. (2023). Challenges for cyber arms control: A qualitative expert interview study. Zeitschrift für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik, 16(3), 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12399-023-00960-w
Repko, A. F., & Szostak, R. (2020). Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Sandvik, K. B. (2012). Towards a militarization of cyberspace: Cyberwar as an issue of international law. Peace Research Institute Oslo.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
The White House. (2023). National cybersecurity strategy. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/National-Cybersecurity-Strategy-2023.pdf
Tufte, E. R. (2001). The visual display of quantitative information (2nd ed.). Graphics Press.