The Main Constraints to the Advancement of Terrorism Studies: Challenges for Social Science Researchers

John Jay College of Criminal Justice

International Crime and Justice

MA Degree Program

Challenges for social science researchers: the main

constraints to the advancement of knowledge in terrorism

studies

Ekrem Ersen Emeksiz

New York

2014

Introduction

There are probably few areas in the social sciences

literature on which so much has been written on the basis

of so little research and it can be concluded that as

much as 80 percent of the literature is not research

based in any rigorous sense of the word; instead, too

often it is narrative, condemnatory, and prescriptive. On

the basis of an analysis of articles published between

1995 and 1999 from the two key journals Terrorism and

Political Violence and Studies in Conflict and Terrorism

it was evident that over 80 percent of all research on

“terrorism” is based either solely or primarily on data

gathered from books, journals, the media or media-derived

databases, or other published documents (Gunning, 2007,

p. 365).

The difficulty of defining terrorism has led to the

cliché that "one man`s terrorist is another man freedom

fighter" (Jenkins, 1980). Consequently, that common

belief further complicates the situation. The term

terrorism not only describes the actions of ‘bad’ people.

The term is more extensive than that. It is documented

that terrorists commit crimes such as kidnapping,

murdering, arson, drug trafficking, and there are no

limits to carrying out these actions. Even under war

conditions, while related parties may conduct themselves

according to the rules of law in some circumstances, and

may recognize zones of neutral territory, for terrorists

there is no neutral territory, no non combatants, no

bystanders, and they can attack and destroy anything they

please, regardless of the law. Thus, at this point, I

want to enforce Jenkins`s claim, that one man`s terrorist

must be everyone`s terrorist ( Jenkins, 1980, p. 2).

The fear created by terrorists may be intended to

cause people to exaggerate their capability and the

importance of their existence, to provoke radicalization,

to break community resilience, to discourage faith and to

enforce extremism. Terrorism is not simply about violent

actions, but the effects of these actions on the public,

and the emergency situations that can occur as a result

of these atrocities. Terrorist organizations choose

innocent people as targets as well as trying to create

public awareness of their mission and perpetuate public

fear in order to address their political grievances

(Jenkins, 1980).

Another critique is that the related research tends

to focus on a short-term immediate assessment of current

or imminent threats as defined by state elites, without

placing them in their wider social and historical context

or questioning to what extent the state or the status quo

have contributed to these “imminent threats”. Very few

articles focus on historical cases of terrorism.

Fieldwork, moreover, is rare. As stated by O’Leary and

Silke, “much of what is written about terrorism . . . is written by people

who have never met a terrorist, or have never actually spent significant time

on the ground in the areas most affected by conflict” (Gunning, 2007,

p. 366).

Compared to other fields of research, Silke points

out that terrorism studies are commonly largely applied

and provide insufficient background to the theoretical or

ideological assumptions informing the research. Many

researchers do not specifically draw attention to

theories to support their data, even though recent works

have begun to be more theoretically oriented. Few

articles consider the political agenda behind the use of

the word terrorism or whether combating this act through

coercive means without political transformation is the

most effective way forward (Gunning, 2007, p. 367).

The purpose of this study was to try and understand

the major challenges within terrorism studies for

scholars and the emerging field of experts and

practitioners. It was observed that particularly as

regards the conceptual framework of terrorism studies, no

common ground exists in order to formulate an

international consensus. In this respect there is debate

about whether the current related variables of terrorism

as a concept result in different perceptions by

governments or non-governmental organizations. Also

criticized is the issue of whether there are different

categories of obstacles or constraints to the development

of knowledge in terrorism studies.

The Main Challenges of Terrorism Studies

Regardless of reporting on a centrally focused topic

such as terrorism, it appears many of the contrasting

voices on this topic are unlikely to overlap. Yet without

an explicit acknowledgement of the difficulties inherent

in defining this concept, and of the effects of various

problem solving approaches documented in the studies of

terrorism, many of those same voices are unlikely to

converge under a traditional terrorism studies umbrella.

It is for this reason that it is necessary to

specifically encourage a new vision in terrorism studies

since only a field that explicitly problematizes some of

the key aspects of the topic it is addressing, such as

terrorism, is likely to facilitate the consolidation of

all these separate components. It is for the same reason

that any future critically constituted field may have to

maintain the term terrorism as the central unifying

concept, as identified by Gunning who noted that “despite

its many drawbacks and the lack of an agreed definition, since without it

there would be little reason for these fragmented voices to converge”

(Gunning, 2007, p. 383).

In certain topic areas, a combination of academic,

social, and governmental factors may be responsible for

constituting a new academic discipline. The topic of

terrorism is one of these disciplines where there is a

need to create a common initiative in order to tackle its

many problematic concerns. When we look at the need to

provide more coherent information about terrorism as a

new academic field, it seems clear that this will need to

include certain sub-categories of this study area that

fall under the suggested title of terrorism studies.

Avishag Gordon from Haifa University listed several

justifications for this; he mentioned firstly, terrorism

is a growing social, economic, and political problem that

requires a solution on an international scale. Secondly,

knowledge about this phenomenon is rapidly increasing.

Thirdly, terrorism is spreading and employing new

technologies; it is no longer geographically bound.

Fourthly, it infiltrates every aspect of life, and has

become a serious consideration in national budgets. The

fifth one is, it shapes the course of scientific research

and penetrates most disciplines. And sixth, it needs to

have an array of disciplinary tools such as various kinds

of publications (journals, books, reports), researchers

in the field, and to include conferences, as well as the

activities of private, governmental, and university

research institutes (Gordon, 2005, p. 50).

After the 9/11 attacks, the data show that this

provided perfect timing for pushing ahead with

disciplinary studies about terrorism. Whether it is

feasible or not, it was clear that either terrorism

studies or their subcategories were needed to address the

topic of terrorism as an independent academic subject.

The opportunity to create a terrorism disciplinary field

was not accomplished, however, and this area of research

has remained fragmented and widespread among various

other disciplines.

The most problematic issues : Conceptual challenges

I. The definition challenge

The first problem in arriving at a discipline of

terrorism as a distinctive body, is the defining of

terrorism. There is no consensus on the definition

of terrorism. There are more than 100 definitions of

terrorism (Young & Findley, 2011). For instance,

terrorism is defined as violence against the

military targets in one country; however, in another

country, violence may be against civilians (Young &

Findley, 2011). This leads researchers to define

terrorism based on the attacks against certain

targets. Researchers may focus on the agreed upon

attributes of the definition of terrorism and

consider other possibilities. For example, one

qualifies violent attacks against civilians as

terrorist attacks whereas one may qualify the

violence attack against military targets during

peacetime as a terrorist attack (Young & Findley,

2011). The attack against the US military target in

Yemen in 2000 is an example of the latter (Young &

Findley, 2011). Thus, researchers should measure

both the definition of terrorism and look at the

results to ascertain whether they are similar or

different based on the measures of terrorism (Young

& Findley, 2011).

There are some problems too regarding the

definition in terms of the state of affairs. In the

first place, terrorism is not a causally coherent,

freestanding phenomenon that can be defined in terms

of characteristics inherent to the violence itself.

As two leading figures in the field put it, the

nature of terrorism is not inherent in the violent

act itself. One and the same act can be either a

terrorist act or another type of act, depending on

the intention of the actions and the circumstances.

Consequently, terrorism is fundamentally a social

fact rather than a senseless fact; the wider

cultural-political meaning of terrorism is decided

through symbolic labeling, social agreement and a

range of inter subjective practices (Jackson, 2009,

p. 172).

A second definition problem of terrorism is

that it describes this act as a form of illegitimate

violence directed towards innocent civilians that is

intended to intimidate or terrify an audience for

political purposes. In practice, it is often the

politically and culturally determined legitimacy of

the particular group under inquiry that determines

whether its actions are described as terrorist in

nature and not the characteristics inherent in the

violence itself. Maybe for these reasons, there are

a number of problems with the way issues of

definition and conceptualization are treated in the

broader terrorism studies that are found in the

current literature, problems that are combined with

a general reservation to tackle these difficult

theoretical issues (Jackson, 2009, p. 173).

As a suggestion for solving this problem,

perhaps producing a transition term will help

determine where should start. There some examples in

the field of definitions other than an accepted

general terrorism definition, and these can be

identified as "consensus definitions" and these bear

a relatively strong resemblance to the way states,

and law enforcement agencies, in particular, regard

the phenomenon. For instance, Hoffman reported that

the US Federal Bureau of Investigation defines

terrorism as ‘‘... the unlawful use of force or

violence against persons or property to intimidate

or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or

any segment thereof, in furtherance of political and

social objectives…”. Another consensus definition

used by British law specifies that ‘‘... terrorism

is the use of violence for political ends, and

includes any use of violence for the purpose of

putting the public or any section of the public in

fear." (Weinberg, Pedahzur, & Hoffler, 2010, p.

787). The specific definition of terrorism that is

used is extremely important for the social

researcher and others. The way terrorism is defined

facilitates the observation of the phenomenon. On

the other hand some researchers find what is

currently used to be highly general and too vague.

In other words, the use of a consensus definition

may ignore the psychological elements of terrorism,

however, in effect, a consensus definition may still

be helpful to those who want to place high academic

value on studies in the terrorism field despite the

existence of such definition based disadvantages

within the terrorism literature (Weinberg, Pedahzur,

& Hoffler, 2010, p. 787).

II. The second challenge in terrorism studies is the

existence of many types of terrorism. There are more

than 50 types of terrorism that have been identified

(Young & Findley, 2011). Thus, researchers cannot

explain or predict terrorist behavior. Scholars also

do not distinguish between international and

domestic terrorism. The data about domestic

terrorism is much more detailed than the data about

transnational terrorism (Young & Findley, 2011). The

data about transnational terrorism do not represent

all terrorist activities (Young & Findley, 2011).

Scholars should thus focus on causal processes when

dealing with different types of terrorism (Young &

Findley, 2011).

III. The third problem in this area is the unit of

analysis (Young & Findley, 2011). The unit of

analysis should match with the theoretical argument,

which is difficult in terrorism studies (Young &

Findley, 2011). For instance, studying states

experiencing violence does not fully explain whether

democracy increases or decreases the likelihood of

terrorism. Researchers should also explicate the

unit of analysis. The target and the audience in

transnational terrorism studies should be from the

same country. Otherwise, the research design becomes

too complicated (Young & Findley, 2011).

In Jalata`s (2010) article it was indicated that

within the capitalist world system political

institutions such as nation states, multinational

corporations, and international organizations allow

the practices of state based terror since it does

not directly affect their interests. For this reason

scholars have started theorizing about non-state

terrorism, and most of the researchers have

contributed to publications concerning the fact that

accumulation of grievances causes terrorism and

"social polarization" between socially and

culturally distant groups (Jalata, 2010). There are

some elements though that reflect on the roots of

terrorism and the effect of high degrees of

cultural and religious differences, relational

distance, and social inequalities between the

aggrieved and the dominant population groups that

can sometimes contribute to the development of non-

state terrorism. After this clarification the theory

proposed by Godwin called theory of categorical

terrorism, was introduced (Jalata, 2010, p, 341).

Researchers use this theory solving the problem of

"unit of analysis". According to this theory, the

main incentive of categorical terrorism is to

stimulate participating civilians to support, or to

proactively demand changes in certain government

policies or the government itself. It can be

utilized by certain agencies in efforts to identify

and solve the terrorism problem both at the national

and the international level.

Categorical terrorism is prone to apply a certain

degree of pressure on civilians who are terrorism

sympathizers. They will expect that their government

will transform or leave the power. This idea is

usually identified as a revolutionary movement

(Jalata, 2010, p, 341). Whether terrorism is

committed by states or non-state agencies, it

affects noncombatant civilians. It is a crime

against humanity; it is the dark side of modern and

democratic society. Accordingly, it is essential

scholars approach this issue seriously and produce

a valid body of moral, intellectual, legal, and

political facts and a clear understanding of all

forms of terrorism and suggest pragmatic policies to

reduce or defeat the problem of terrorism.

Main reasons underlying the conceptual challenges

Terrorism is a political phenomenon. Thus, until

the political problems that give rise to contemporary

global terrorism are resolved, the struggle against this

violent act will not be successful. Although the

different conditions that characteristically support

terrorism are taken into account when a global consensus

against terrorism is attempted (Lebedeva, 2006, p. 121),

this has not been successful to date. This is owing to

the fact that when constructing a new world political

system that would be more responsive to current

realities, the role of political issues has almost always

been entirely excluded from the set of challenges

analyzed as part of the proposed counterterrorist

measures (Lebedeva, 2006). This is relatively challenging

because issues connected with the formation of the world

political system cannot be resolved overnight, but at

the same time, terrorist activity requires an immediate

response. Nevertheless, political decisions should play

an active role in the development of any wide range

perspective against terrorism, mainly considering the

ideological nature of the phenomenon of terrorism. It is

around this understanding that nations must build their

military, psychological, economic, and other strategies

for fighting terrorism (Lebedeva, 2006).

Main constraints to the advancement of terrorism studies

Political and domestic affairs context

It has been observed that a states own interest or

political structure is seemingly effective in generating

public polarization. According to the literature, a

number of political decision makers as well as critically

minded scholars have argued that the field must face up

to a number of unique normative and political challenges.

There is a very descriptive article that I would like to

highlight that was written by Richard Jackson, who

documented these challenges and political biases in

common research subjects, including the tendency to focus

on groups and states which Western states are opposed to.

He also describes the tendency to reinforce and reproduce

many of the dominant myths about terrorism put forward by

the state and the popular media, including the myths that

terrorism poses a major threat to international security

and that terrorists are mentally unstable. These myths

are very effective in misleading the members of the

community and in increasing terrorism fear within the

society. For example after the 9/11 terrorist attacks

there was a huge media campaign about religious terrorism

and many people bought guns in order to protect

themselves against terrorists as a result. That was not

an official campaign but so many federal and local

political initiatives encouraged people directly or

indirectly to purchase a weapon. And later on that myth

caused another social disaster, namely collective gun

violence incidents. That this false and aggressive

interpretation of terrorism caused another disaster all

over the United States is of course not yet proven

scientifically. But when we follow the chronological

events and look into the cause-result relationship of

these factors it would not be difficult to identify those

social facts. The failure to appreciate and reflect upon

the politics of labeling in regards to terrorism and the

socio political interests of terrorism research for

certain communities and individuals is a problem as well;

along with the integration of what is called “conflict

resolution” approaches to the study of political terror

that often compromise financial and political

relationships between states and their institutions.

Scholars and analysts who deal with the study of non-

state terrorism; and the prioritizing of topics shaped to

the demands of policy-makers for practically useful

knowledge in the fight against terrorism are hence often

challenged (Jackson, 2008, p. 2). In addition, as the

concepts of terrorism and political violence are often

unclear, struggling to understand the one issue

necessarily entails a struggle to understand the other

(Herring, 2008). This is reflected in the substantial

differences between current mainstream and critical

terrorism studies. In terms of critical terrorism studies

to advance and challenge the mainstream approach, it

appears that the integration of rights based opposition

to political violence informed by a historical

materialist understanding of the structures and processes

of world politics will contribute substantially to the

analysis of terrorism and the topic of activism (Herring,

2008, p. 22).

Interdisciplinary context

Jalata from the Tennessee University maintained that

the mainstream literature on terrorism and the

discussions of five areas of weakness in defining and

theorizing terrorism are intended to suggest that most

scholars from both the right and the left have yet to

establish a single practical, moral, legal, and scholarly

standard that enables them to go beyond the discourses of

commerce or money, culture, religion, and civilization to

critically understand the root causes of terrorism more

less and to provide an appropriate policy suggestion for

reducing this problem (Jalata, 2010, p. 336). According

to this author, the life and liberty of all humans should

be recognized and defended on an equal level, morally,

politically, and intellectually (Jalata, 2010).

Otherwise, the opposite of terrorism, which is moral

corruption may prevail and would be self-defeating. Yet,

the lack of sound ideological, intellectual, and cultural

thinking has resulted in numerous deficiencies in

published terrorism studies. Thus, experts have failed to

establish a universal standard for conceptualizing and

theorizing terrorism. In order to enhance our

understanding capacity of all forms of terrorism, we need

to enlarge our scope by starting to study the complex

subject of terrorism in both its global and historical

contexts (Jalata, 2010, p. 336).

Conclusion

Mankind has been facing the dark and cold side of

terrorism for hundreds of years. Although it is has been

identified differently and every different terrorist

organization has a different drive and motivation, there

is one fact that has not changed, that is, these

circumstances often involve unstoppable violence and the

killing of innocent people. In this respect, social

scientists need to focus on more practical and readily

applied scientific remedies for solving this problem. As

was mentioned in Jackson`s article, advocating for a more

prominent critical approach to the study of terrorism is

one possible way to overcome many of these weaknesses and

challenges in the field in order to adopt a particular

set of conceptual, methodological, and political-

normative commitments (Jackson, 2008). The specific

commitments and attitudes of counter-terrorism studies

(CTS) have been discussed in detail elsewhere. Those

efforts can be summarized briefly as a commitment to

inter-disciplinarily studies, a willingness to engage

with research from disciplines outside of international

relations, a commitment to transparency regarding the

values and political standpoints of researchers,

especially as they relate to the strategic interests and

values of the states they engage with, a willingness by

researchers to expand the focus of their research to

include topics such as the use of terrorism by states,

gender dimensions of terrorism, ethical-normative

analysis of counter-terrorism, and the discursive

foundations which make terrorism studies possible in the

first place (Jackson, 2008). Adherence to a set of

principles and research ethics which take account of the

various users of terrorism research, including the

suspect communities from which terrorists often emerge

and the populations who bear the impact of counter-

terrorism policies requires a commitment to taking the

subjectivity of both the researcher and the researched

seriously, particularly in terms of being willing to

‘talk to terrorist‘ and a commitment to normative values

and a broadly defined notion of liberation (Jackson,

2008). Another point is that social scientists should try

to obtain more insightful information and should conduct

deeper analyses regarding the terrorism phenomenon. In my

opinion social researchers have to work with

practitioners from the field of counterterrorism in order

to reach more successful and consistent results in

terrorism studies. As Mr Arun Kundnani pointed out while

he was giving his seminar speech about “Radicalization as

homegrown threat in the United States” at John Jay

College, he mentioned that “ NYPD`s radicalization report gave so

much inspiration to the academic works”. Consequently as a

practitioner from the law enforcement field I would like

to confess that “we have bunch of information about

terrorism, but we do not know that how to use them

effectively.” We need to use those pieces of information

systematically in order to establish a more organized and

critical decision making mechanism as well as creating a

suitable implementation path. On the other hand, social

researchers need data in order to render their studies

valid and useful. Therefore, the solution there is

obviously very clear. In order to eliminate deficiencies

and drawbacks and enhance the capacity for collective

achievement about terrorism studies, we need to see more

interaction between the theoretical aspects and practical

aspects of the field of terrorism. Perhaps at that point

in time, we will be able to observe something concrete

from this unseen enemy of humanity.

Sources

Gordon, A. (2005). Terrorism as an Academic Subject

after 9/11: Searching the Internet Reveals a Stockholm

Syndrome Trend. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 28(1), 45-59.

Gunning, J. (2007). A Case for Critical Terrorism

Studies? 1. Government and Opposition, 42(3), 363-393.

Herring, E. (2008). Critical terrorism studies: an

activist scholar perspective. Critical Studies on

Terrorism, 1(2), 197-211.

Jackson, R. (2009). The Study of Terrorism after 11

September 2001: Problems, Challenges and Future

Developments. Political Studies Review, 7(2), 171-184.

Jackson, R. (2009). Critical terrorism studies: a new research

agenda. Taylor & Francis US.

Jalata, A. (2010). Conceptualizing and Theorizing

Terrorism in the Historical and Global

Context. Humanity & Society, 34(4), 317-349.

Jenkins, B. M. (1980). The study of terrorism: definitional

problems. Rand Corporation.

Lebedeva, M. M. (2006). The terrorist threat to the

world political system.Connections, 3, 115-124.

Young, J. K., & Findley, M. G. (2011). Promise and

pitfalls of terrorism research. International Studies

Review, 13(3), 411-431.

Weinberg, L., Pedahzur, A., & Hirsch-Hoefler, S.

(2004). The challenges of conceptualizing

terrorism. Terrorism and Policical Violence, 16(4), 777-794.