Critical Terrorism Studies

An Introduction to Research Methods

Jacob Stump, Priya Dixit

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781135104177
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Terrorism
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book is an introduction to critical approaches to terrorism studies.

While there is a growing body of Critical Terrorism Studies (CTS) literature devoted to empirical examples and conceptual development, very little has been written about how to systematically carry out this kind of research. Critical Terrorism Studies fills this gap by addressing three key themes:

• The position of terrorism studies and critical terrorism studies in the discipline of International Relations (IR)

• Theoretical and methodological elaborations of critical approaches to the study of terrorism

• Empirical illustrations of those approaches.

Drawing upon a range of engaging material, the volume reviews a series of non-variable based methodological approaches. It then goes on to provide empirical examples that illustrate how these approaches have been and can be utilized by students, teachers, and postgraduate researchers alike to critically and rigorously study terrorism.

This textbook will be of much interest to students of terrorism studies, sociology, critical security studies, and IR in general.

1 The Critical Terrorism Studies Project

Introduction

Since the 1970s and especially in the 2000s, the topics of terrorism and counterterrorism have become the focus of a considerable amount of research. Terrorism Studies (TS) has been described, debated, criticized, and defended by a number of different authors (Jackson et al. 2009a; Gunning 2007a; Ranstorp 2009; Reid and Chen 2007; Weinberg and Eubank 2008; Horgan and Boyle 2008). Not all research on terrorism and counterterrorism, however, operates from this orthodox or traditional TS perspective.

More recently, a Critical Terrorism Studies (CTS) research agenda has been introduced (Jackson et al. 2009a, 2012) and subjected to various criticisms (Weinberg and Eubank 2008; Horgan and Boyle 2008; Gunning 2007b; Michel and Richards 2009). While there is a growing body of CTS literature devoted to empirical examples and conceptual development, very little has been written about how to systematically do this kind of research. This book directly addresses that gap. In particular, our focus is on:

1. sketching out a consistent methodological framework;

2. describing in detail particular methods of data analysis and data gathering;

3. showing illustrative examples and suggesting future avenues of research;

4. providing basic research strategies for different methods.

The remainder of this chapter is divided into three parts. Because CTS has engendered a great deal of debate and to help the reader see more clearly what is at stake in these debates, the next section is concerned with outlining some of the key arguments that have been advanced for and against the CTS project. After that, our focus shifts to clarifying some important issues that CTS approaches grapple with, such as emancipation, identity, and defining terrorism. Finally, the last section briefly sketches out the remaining chapters of the book.

CTS: Arguments For and Against

Over the past few years, a number of authors have debated whether or not CTS is warranted. Some argued in the affirmative and suggest that any problems with the CTS project are risks to avoid or overcome in the future (Jackson 2007b; Jackson et al. 2009b; Gunning 2007a; Smyth 2007). Others argued in the negative and suggest that some problems facing the development of CTS undermine the very basis of the project or, at least, certain points should be corrected (Horgan and Boyle 2008; Weinberg and Eubank 2008; Gunning 2007b). In this section, we briefly sketch out both perspectives so that readers have a clearer picture of the debates surrounding CTS.

Arguments Against CTS

We briefly describe four arguments made against CTS or problems identified with the development of the project. These problems are not exhaustive, but offer a solid starting point for discussion.

1. The novelty of CTS criticisms of TS, such as limited primary data, theoretical naivety and state centricity, are overstated. Scholars studying terrorism have been well aware of these concerns and, over the past couple of decades, have provided their own criticisms of the field that encompass CTS concerns (Horgan and Boyle 2008).

2. Defining the boundaries of CTS in relation to TS is risky because CTS could ghettoize itself and completely break away from more conventional ways of studying terrorism (Gunning 2007b: 237–238). John Horgan and Michael J. Boyle make this point further. They argue that CTS has, in fact, made this very ghetto. In their words, CTS has “created a false dualism” between a critical approach to the study of terrorism and a conventional (or orthodox) way to study terrorism (Horgan and Boyle 2008: 61). The false dualism created by CTS, in other words, blinds CTS to the criticisms already raised by authors writing from within TS, which basically undermines “the claim that CTS is fundamentally ‘different’” (Horgan and Boyle 2008: 61).

3. The notion that there is an orthodox TS is a “recent intellectual” fabrication built on a selective reading of the extant literature on terrorism (Horgan and Boyle 2008: 57). For instance, CTS is often critical of the way TS researchers handle the concept of causation, while CTS fail to closely address “previous work on the subject” (Horgan and Boyle 2008: 58). Similarly, the CTS claim that TS research is often ahistorical fails to seriously engage the work of historians of terrorism, such as Walter Laqueur and David Rappaport, who have traced terrorism to ancient times and strongly made the case that it is “hardly new” (Weinberg and Eubank 2008: 189). The CTS claim that TS has too often avoided state terrorism and overly emphasized group terrorism is also a result of a selective engagement with the literature on terrorism. Weinberg and Eubank argue that TS has, to the contrary, “extensively” studied state terror in the context of Latin America, apartheid South Africa, and the abuses of power by American and British governments (2008: 191). CTS scholars, in other words, “have a responsibility to offer a more textured and careful review of the literature than they have offered so far” (Horgan and Boyle 2008: 58).

4. CTS shows a suspicion of policy relevant research (Horgan and Boyle 2008: 59). In particular, as Gunning notes, the concern is that CTS scholars working too closely with policy-makers will become coopted into generating rational choice, problem solving work that loses its critical edge. But, especially for those advancing an emancipatory agenda, policy relevance is necessary (Gunning 2007b: 239–240). In response to this concern and discussed in Chapter 4 of this book, some CTS advocates have identified ways to work with policy-makers and advance an emancipatory agenda (Toros and Gunning 2009). Similarly, policy relevance does not necessarily mean working with policy-makers. It could also mean working with non-governmental organizations and other civil society organizations (Horgan and Boyle 2008: 59).

Reasons for CTS

Why develop a CTS? Supporters of CTS offer a number of reasons in support of their position. While not exhaustive, we sketch out four closely related reasons that should encourage further discussion.

1. Much of the TS literature operates from a problem-solving perspective (Gunning 2007b), but clearly not all TS writing works in this vein (Horgan and Boyle 2008: 53–55). Drawing from Robert Cox, a problem-solving perspective takes existing actors and relations, such as the state (its interests and identity) and their relations of insecurity with terrorist groups, as given, objective features of world politics. It does not attempt to account for the historical emergence of the state, its interests, identity, or its relations of insecurity with terrorist groups. Rather, a problem-solving approach works to explain why present problems exist and how those problems can be overcome with specific policies the state can implement (Cox 1981; Gunning 2007a). CTS-inspired work, in contrast, might investigate the subjectivity of the militant (Zulaika and Douglass 2008; see also Chapter 6), explore the various ways that people make sense of terrorism and counterterrorism (Chapter 7), or map networks of policy-makers and institutions and explore how these actors garner sociopolitical benefit from issuing terrorist warnings (Chapter 10).

2. Much of the TS literature is state-centric (Smyth 2007: 261), which is closely related to the criticism of problem-solving that we noted above (Gunning 2007a: 371). State-centric work presumes the state is the basic unit to be secured against the threat of terrorism. The means to secure the state center on military and police agencies. CTS approaches, in contrast, might focus on non-state actors. For instance, as we discuss in Chapter 4, critical-theory-inspired CTS might focus on marginal voices within civil society, terrorist groups, or attentive citizens in the USA. Or, even more broadly, human security as opposed to state security might be a concern of approaches that avoid state centrism.

3. Much of the TS literature is ahistorical (Smyth 2007: 260), which has two meanings in the context of CTS critique. First, while the general history of terrorist violence has been investigated (Weinberg and Eubank 2008: 189; Laqueur 1977; Rapoport 1984), there is the presumption that the events on September 11, 2001, were exceptional (Smyth 2007: 260). Second, the TS literature is ahistorical insofar as it ignores the historical trajectory of the state (Gunning 2007a: 371), the genealogy of terrorism (Blain 2007; Jackson 2006), and the historical development of terrorism and the state (Jackson 2006; Oliverio 1998; Dixit 2010; Stump 2010). CTS approaches drawing from ethnography and discourse analysis might, for instance, show how the counterterrorist state is composed in the present or how the state historically developed in relation to terrorism. We discuss these research possibilities in Chapters 7 and 9.

4. Since the development of TS in the 1960s and 1970s, writing on the topic has grown dramatically. Starting in the 1980s and especially after September 11, 2001, explicitly “critical” approaches to the study of terrorism have emerged. Classes focused on the critical study of terrorism have been developed, papers presented at conferences, conferences devoted to CTS have been organized, global networks of scholars have taken shape, research institutions are actively studying terrorism from an explicitly critical angle, a CTS-dedicated journal is in place, and articles, books, and chapters have been published.

Clarifying Some Key Issues

“Critical”: What Does That Mean in CTS?

A continuing challenge for CTS centers on how most usefully to conceptualize the meaning of “critical.” Critics have noted the ambiguity and vagueness of the meaning of “critical” for CTS-related publications (Jones and Smith 2009: 93-95; see also Chapter 4 of this book). The most vocal supporters of CTS have been explicit about their “relatively heavy reliance on Frankfurt School Critical Theory” as it has been filtered through the Critical Security Studies (CSS) of the Welsh School, especially the work of Ken Booth (Jackson et al. 2009a: 234). At the same time, these supporters have voiced apparent surprise that “there appears to be a perception among many US scholars that it relates specifically to Frankfurt School Critical Theory or some variant of either Marxism or post-structuralism” (Jackson et al. 2009a: 235).

In an effort to answer Jones and Smith's relevant critique and to push against the over-emphasis on Frankfurt School-informed conceptualizations of “critical,” Priya Dixit and Jacob L. Stump have argued that there are other ways of understanding the meaning of “critical” work on terrorism (2011: 505). For example, well before the post-September-11 instantiations of CTS were taking shape, Karin Fierke defined “critical” in these terms:

the analysis is not primarily critical because it includes a range of practices that in the past have been ignored. There is not necessarily anything critical about the mere descriptions of a change, even it if includes dissident voices. This volume is first and foremost critical because it makes us look again, in a fresh way, at that which we assume about the world because it has become overly familiar. In this way, new spaces are opened for thinking about the meaning of the past and the present and, therefore, how we construct the future.

(Fierke 1998: 13; emphasis added)

Here, in Fierke's definition of “critical,” it means using different methods to study how meanings are formulated, identities produced and actions legitimated. Specifically in relation to the problem of a “critical” study of terrorism, Fierke wrote:

While the term “Critical Security Studies” sometimes refers to a school of thought that draws on post-Marxist traditions, and to the Frankfurt School in particular, I use the term in the broader sense to include a range of approaches whose point of departure is a critique of traditional security studies.

(Fierke 2005: 51, note 1)

Thus, as Dixit and Stump claimed, “this re-understanding of “critical” does not automatically equate with a discussion of the ideological foundations of orthodox terrorism scholarship or the goal of emancipation” (2011: 505) – though, as we argue in later chapters of this book, the meaning of “critical” can certainly connect closely with the concept of emancipation and the Frankfurt School.

In other words, then, we argue that it is analytically useful to conceptualize “critical” for CTS as operating along a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum, “critical” is closely associated with the Frankfurt School. We go over this understanding of “critical” in much more detailed terms in Chapter 4. But basically, we argue that from the perspective of the Frankfurt School, “critical” means that the researcher should align their selves with some unfree group, elaborate on the everyday critiques made by those suffering under the unfree conditions, help them reflect on their understandings and conditions and try to provoke them to change their situation and effectively emancipate their selves. At the other end of the “critical” spectrum and more in line with Fierke's suggestions, “critical” can avoid the association with the Frankfurt School and have a wider meaning that has nothing to do with emancipation. “Critical” in this broader sense of the term means to interrogate the commonsense assumptions that inform our analyses of security issues more broadly and terrorism in particular. We illustrate this broader meaning of “critical” in various chapters throughout this book and illustrate different methods for doing CTS.

Causation and Constitution

While there is no unified set of methods for making causal and constitutive explanations, Richard Jackson has argued that CTS is able to deal with both causation and constitution (Jackson et al. 2012: 202). In the social sciences (including political science and International Relations [IR] more specifical...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Illustrations
• Acknowledgements
• List of Abbreviations
• 1 The Critical Terrorism Studies Project
• Part I The History and Transdisciplinarity of (Critical) Terrorism Studies
• Part II Methods for Doing Critical Terrorism Studies
• Bibliography
• Index