Conducting Terrorism Field Research

A Guide

Adam Dolnik

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781136751073
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politica e relazioni internazionali
• Subtopic: Terrorismo

This book offers a detailed and practically oriented guide to the challenges of conducting terrorist fieldwork.

The past decade has seen an explosion of research into terrorism. However, field research on terrorism has traditionally been surrounded by many myths, and has been called anything from "necessary" and "crucial" to "dangerous", "unethical" and "impossible". While there is an increasing interest among terrorism specialists in conducting such research, there is no single volume providing prospective field researchers with a guideline to such work.

Conducting Terrorism Field Research aims to fill this gap and offers a collection of articles from experienced authors representing different risk groups, disciplines, methodological approaches, regional specializations, and other context-specific aspects. Each contributor provides a road-map to their own research, describing planning and preparation phases, the formalities involved in getting into conflict zones and gaining access to sources. The end product is a 'how to' guide to field research on terrorism, which will be of much value to terrorism experts and novices alike.

This book will be of much interest to students and researchers of terrorism studies, war and conflict studies, criminology, IR and security studies.

1

INTRODUCTION

The need for field research on terrorism

Adam Dolnik¹

Arguably no other field has witnessed as great an increase in academic output over the last decade as the discipline known as terrorism studies. This has resulted in a greatly enhanced understanding of specific contemporary topics such as al-Qaeda, the radi-calization process, terrorist uses of the internet, suicide terrorism, de-radicalization and disengagement from terrorism, and the challenges non-state actors face in acquiring and weaponizing chemical and biological agents. But while this exponential increase in terrorism literature has led to a welcome broadening of the scope of perspectives and approaches to studying the phenomenon, comparatively little attention has been devoted to attempts to systematically develop the quality of the terrorism studies discipline itself. For instance, while a new book on terrorism comes out roughly every six hours,² only three books evaluating the state of the field and its future directions have been published in the last 12 years.³ These books, as well as many recent panels of terrorism studies specialists tasked with evaluating the state of the discipline, have unequivocally called for more historical comparative research across different contexts, increased effort to incrementally build on past research conducted by other authors, and above all, the need for more first hand research.

Field research on terrorism has traditionally been surrounded by many myths, and has been called anything from “necessary” and “crucial” to “dangerous,” “unethical” and “impossible.” But despite common assumptions that such research is inherently difficult and dangerous, the fact is that many authors have over the years proven such assumptions to be unfounded. According to Silke, “the idea that terrorism research is inevitably highly dangerous and risky is mistaken.”⁴ The key, of course, is experience and a prior understanding of the issues involved, and the researcher's ability to anticipate likely developments and to adjust. But while there is an increasing interest among terrorism specialists in conducting field research, not a single volume that would provide prospective field researchers with a crucial starting point currently exists.⁵ This edited volume attempts to address this critical gap by providing practical insights into the challenges of such fieldwork, based on the experiences of multiple authors representing different methodological approaches, nationalities, regional and functional foci, and thematic specializations.

Admittedly, several books on “dangerous fieldwork” written by authors of related disciplines already exist.⁶ But while all of these books are certainly useful to terrorism researchers aspiring to go into the field, there are some specific aspects that make field research on terrorism distinct. For instance, field research on terrorism does not just entail operating in a dangerous environment and trying to avoid associated risks, it seeks to study precisely the source of many of those risks. As a result, avoidance is not an option, and there are many specific differences involved in ethics, access, security, behavior, information management, secrecy etc., that require a separate contextual treatment.

The need for field research

The field of terrorism studies has received considerable criticism for being overly event driven, essentially descriptive in nature, relying on weak research methods,⁷ focusing in isolation on individual groups (especially ones that dominate the policy and media discourse at the time), and for a very limited effort to build on past research conducted by other authors.⁸ In addition, considerable self-reflective criticism within the field has focused on the fact that much of the terrorism studies literature does not incorporate field research. According to Silke, “very few published attempts have been made to systematically study terrorists outside of a prison setting,”⁹ confirming Crenshaw's observation that “the study of terrorism still lacks the foundation of extensive primary data based on interviews and life histories of individuals engaged in terrorism.”¹⁰ Silke concludes: “for a dramatic phenomenon of such intense interest to the media and wider world, such gapping holes in the literature are nothing short of stunning.”¹¹ This point has also become a lynchpin for the somewhat dubious discipline of “critical terrorism studies,” the proponents of which have also argued that “terrorism analysts rarely bother to interview or engage with those involved in ‘terrorist activity’ or spend any time on the ground in the areas most affected by conflict.”¹² But the fact is that the relative lack of field research has long been recognized from within the terrorism studies discipline as well, and many terrorism analysts have in recent years made a significant effort to rectify this problem.

Needless to say, while terrorism research does not easily lend itself to reliable, valid and systematic exploration in the field,¹³ there are many ways through which field research can contribute to our understanding of the causes, dynamics, and manifestations of terrorism and political violence. Firstly, given the highly emotional and subjective nature of the terrorism phenomenon, available data tends to be strongly politically manipulated by all sides, requiring a higher standard of verification to ensure the reliability and accuracy of findings. This is especially true for historical campaigns that had taken place before the digital era, in environments where the government possessed a virtual monopoly on the dissemination of information to the outside world. For researching such cases, field research becomes absolutely essential. This is especially true given the historical tendency of researchers to rely heavily on citing each other's work, which has led to the creation of a highly unreliable closed and circular research system, functioning in a constantly reinforcing feedback loop.¹⁴ This then results in the common acceptance of various unsupported myths, which serve as foundations of “knowledge” in the field until proven otherwise.¹⁵ The end product is the exponential proliferation and tacit validation of mistakes made by researchers, their assistants, interpreters, etc., which has led to recording of inaccurate data, including incorrect names, places, casualty figures, and even the creation of terrorist attack plots and cases which never happened.¹⁶ Today's terrorism research simply requires fieldwork in order to break this debilitating cycle.

Second, much of the current research relies on the government perspective, which brings its own biases. For instance, while effective governmental countermeasures are consistently cited as one of the key historical reasons leading to the decline of terrorist groups, effective tools for measuring success in counterterrorism remain largely nonexistent, and contemporary research tends to be further skewed by factors such as comparatively easier access to government data and the one-sided nature of research funding¹⁷ (in this respect terrorism research is sometimes compared to lung cancer research funded by a tobacco company).¹⁸ Unsurprisingly, this situation leads researchers to stress the role of government policies as the decisive factor in the decline of terrorist violence,¹⁹ even though such a claim rarely takes the form of a testable proposition. As observed by Cronin, the extent to which terrorist campaigns transform independently of government countermeasures thus remains among a long list of questions we currently lack reliable answers to.²⁰ Field research and interviews with perpetrators and organizers of terrorist violence are crucial in providing at least some counterbalance to this inherent and largely unavoidable bias.

Third, the overwhelming dependence of most terrorism research on secondary sources is highly problematic, as secondary source data is frequently incorrect on crucial details. This is especially true with respect to historical cases that occurred prior to the age of electronic media in countries where access to any reliable and independent sources was practically non-existent. For instance, in my research on terrorist innovation²¹ I have relied on the meticulous chronological work of Mickolus and his colleagues, who have filled thousands of pages with detailed information on all terrorist incidents recorded since 1945. After having the chance to interview dozens of perpetrators, witnesses, victims and investigators of many of the historical attacks recorded in those chronologies, I found that many of the details were simply incorrect. Sometimes the dates were wrong, in most cases the casualty figures were uncertain or disputed, there would be at least three interpretations of who was behind any given attack and why (including multiple conspiracy theories), there would be multiple claims of responsibility, the details of the specific modus operandi were frequently subject to the guessing and imagination of the reporter of the newspaper article that was used as the source, and my overall impression and understanding of practically every historical attack changed dramatically after researching it in the field. This is not to take anything away from the very helpful work of Mickolus and his colleagues who unavoidably used the sources that were available to them at the time; it simply highlights the fact that because of the inherent deficiencies in access to historical data, it is important to engage in more rigorous efforts of cross checking the facts of specific cases via field research.

Importantly, there is a cultural element that is crucial in determining the level of trust with which one approaches government data. While during interviews with investigators of the 7/7 bombings in the UK the researcher can have a high level of confidence in the accuracy of the details provided, it would be a mistake to extend the same level of trust to highly controversial cases such as the 1979 hostage takeover of the Grand Mosque in Mecca or the 2004 Beslan school siege, where existing versions are strongly politically manipulated by all sides. In investigating such cases, field research is simply unavoidable if the researcher is to have any confidence in his/her ability to describe what actually transpired. And since much of our analysis of the terrorist's intentions, tactics, strategy, and possible countermeasures depends on the ability to accurately reconstruct specific events, the fact is that in most cases this cannot be accurately done from open sources alone.

Fourth, although there is a considerable amount of data “from the horse's mouth” available through interviews with terrorists published in mainstream electronic and print media, the fact is that many of the questions asked in such media interviews are designed to trigger a “soundbite” response, as opposed to seeking deeper and more complex insights. In addition, when terrorists speak to the media they have a clear goal of spreading a particular type of message depending on the target audience. Needless to say, if given the chance, terrorism researchers would frequently ask different questions, in a different setting and in a different way, thus very likely triggering different responses. This of course depends on the given researcher's rapport and level of trust with the interviewee, but the point is that a deeper access to terrorists via in depth interviews has a lot to offer over the selective “plugging in” of quotes from media interviews we as analysts frequently engage in. This is especially true given the fact that most terrorists speak differently based on the media outlet the interview is for, and the specific target audience they are trying to influence. This does not mean that in interviews conducted by researchers such problems do not exist; at the same time, conducting the interview personally allows the researcher to ask follow-up questions that help test the validity and reliability of the answers.

Fifth, field research on terrorism also has the potential to uncover new data, which in a discipline where the same limited set of anecdotes and examples tends to be used and reused by researchers over and over again (sometimes to illustrate completely contradictory points), is undoubtedly a worthwhile undertaking. While groups like the IRA, ETA, al-Qaeda or Hezbollah have been studied in some depth and are indeed important, there is still a vast array of groups engaged in terrorism and political violence throughout the world (especially in Africa, South Asia, and Central Asia) that have received barely any academic attention at all. And while research in the field does not always lead to groundbreaking new insights, the potential for expanding the contemporary base of knowledge about terrorism through interviews clearly exists.

And finally, field research is about so much more than data collection. In fact, it could be argued that it is the process it self that plays the more crucial role of educating the researcher and deepening his/her knowledge about the context, and everyday realities in which the perpetrators, supporters, and victims of terrorism operate. This exposure to reality alone can rapidly change the researcher's perceptions on many different fronts. Quite simply, one can usefully read all available books and sources on a particular terrorist campaign, but without field visits and exposure to the environment there is much tacit knowledge the researcher simply will not be aware of. In ma...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Contemporary Terrorism Studies
• Full Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Contributors
• 1 Introduction — The need for field research on terrorism
• PART I
• PART II
• PART III
• Index