Growth opportunities in American and British terrorism research

This excellent paper spotlights significant opportunities for enhancing data collection, analysis, and interpretation within American and British terrorism research. Proposing seven promising areas, it identifies potential growth in the following sectors:

1. Interview methods and reporting: The authors suggest that terrorist interviews, which frequently cover extensive periods of past experiences, should be conducted repeatedly, honed to focus on shorter durations, and corroborated through cross-referencing with family, peers, teachers, or official records. This should also involve considering the interviewer’s potential impact on interviewee responses.
2. Database sourcing: To counterbalance biases in database research, utilising multiple sources and comparing them is key. Highlighting court proceedings as a potential gold standard for facts of a terrorism case, the authors recommend comparing court records with database records wherever possible.
3. Comparison groups: The authors advocate for a broader approach, contrasting terrorists not only with other offenders but also with non-offenders like community samples or non-criminal activists who share similar causes.
4. Confidential informants: The paper points to the potential bias in terrorism convictions aided by confidential informants, suggesting that a comparative study of cases that do and do not rely on an informant is necessary.
5. Base-rate considerations: The researchers underscore that terrorism is exceedingly rare and emphasise the importance of distinguishing between radical ideas and radical actions in terrorism research.
6. Ideology versus grievances: The authors propose a shift in focus away from vaguely defined ideologies and narratives, advocating instead for a stronger focus on grievances, collective action frames, and emotions.
7. Emotions: The researchers call for increased attention on the emotional aspects of terrorism, from the emotions fuelling political violence, those motivating sympathy and support for terrorist groups, to those of the intended victims.

In summary, this paper identifies key opportunities to bolster the quality of terrorism research, striving to improve both methodological and conceptual standards. The authors optimistically posit that the coming twenty years will provide more extensive insights into how individuals and groups resort to political violence.