Turkish Terrorism Studies: A Preliminary Assessment

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1, 21 - 44, 13.06.2017

Cenker Korhan Demir , Engin Avcı

https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.321155

Cited By: 1

Öz

This article aims to determine the academic disciplinary condition of Turkish

terrorism studies in comparison to international ones. We first examine

contemporary international terrorism studies and new trends, and then

longitudinally assess Turkish terrorism studies via context and methodology.

Last, we discuss how and through which perspectives the Turkish discipline

could improve and thus contribute to the contemporary literature. We generated

three datasets after examining theses, dissertations, and articles. Further, we

conducted interviews with and administered questionnaires to terrorism experts

to interpret the dataset findings. Regarding context, the most striking point of

the Turkish research field is its multi-disciplinary character; because of this

fact, Turkish terrorism studies tend to neglect the broader field’s terminology

and theoretical accumulation. Regarding methodology, a significant problem in

the terrorism studies in Turkey is that studies are mostly composed of literature

reviews rather than empirical research, thus there is much opportunity for

development.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Turkish terrorism studies, academic discipline, methodology, context, dataset

Kaynakça

• Ackerman, Gary A., and Lauren E. Pinson. “Speaking Truth to Sources: Introducing a Method for the Quantitative Evaluation of Open Sources in Event Data.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 39, nos. 7-8 (2016): 617-40.
• Aydınlı, Ersel, Erol Kurubaş, and Haluk Özdemir. Yöntem, Kuram, Komplo: Türk Uluslararası İlişkiler Disiplininde Vizyon Arayışları. Ankara: Asil Yayın Dağıtım, 2009.
• Crenshaw, Martha. “Current Research on Terrorism: The Academic Perspective.” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 15, no. 1 (1992): 1-11.
• ———. “The Psychology of Terrorism: An Agenda for the 21st Century.” Political Psychology 21, no. 2 (2000): 405-20.
• Creswell, John W., and Dana L. Miller. “Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry.” Theory into Practice 39, no. 3 (2000): 124-30.
• Crozier, Brian. The Rebels. London: Chatto and Windus, 1960.
• Demir, Cenker Korhan. Sebeplerinden Mücadele Yöntemlerine Etnik Ayrılıkçı Terörizmin Analizi: PIRA, ETA, PKK. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık, 2017.
• Freedman, Benjamin. “Terrorism Research Centres: 100 Institutes, Programs and Organisations in the Field of Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism, Radicalisation and Asymmetric Warfare Studies.” Perspectives on Terrorism 4, no. 5 (2010). Accessed May 13, 2016. http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/123/html.
• Gordon, Avishag. “Can Terrorism Become a Scientific Discipline? A Diagnostic Study.” Critical Studies on Terrorism 3, no. 3 (2010): 437-58.
• ———. “Terrorism as an Academic Subject after 9/11: Searching the Internet Reveals a Stockholm Syndrome Trend.” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 28, no. 1 (2005): 45-59.
• ———. “Terrorism and Knowledge Growth: A Databases and Internet Analysis.” In Research on Terrorism: Trends, Achievements and Failures, edited by Andrew Silke, 104-18. London: Frank Cass, 2004.
• ———. “Terrorism and the Scholarly Communication System.” Terrorism and Political Violence 13, no. 4 (2001): 116-24.
• ———. “Transient and Continuant Authors in a Research Field: The Case of Terrorism.” Scientometrics 72, no. 2 (2007): 213-24.
• Guest, Greg, Arwen Bunce, and Laura Johnson. “How May Interviews Are Enough? An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability.” Field Methods 18, no. 1 (2006): 59-82.
• Gurr, Ted Robert. “Empirical Research on Political Terrorism: The State of the Art and How It Might Be Improved.” In Current Perspectives on International Terrorism, edited by R.O. Slater and Michael Stohl, 115-54. London: Macmillan, 1988.
• Gürbüz, Sait, and Faruk Şahin. Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık, 2016. Hülsse, Rainer, and Alexander Spencer. “The Metaphor of Terror: Terrorism Studies in Constructivist Turn.” Security Dialogue 39, no. 6 (2008): 571-92.
• Jackson, Richard. “The Epistemological Crisis of Counterterrorism.” Critical Studies on Terrorism 8, no. 1 (2015): 33-54.
• ———. “The Study of Terrorism 10 Years after 9/11: Successes, Issues, Challenges.” Uluslararası İlişkiler 8, no. 32 (2012): 1-16.
• Jackson, Richard, Marie Breen Smyth, and Jeroen Gunning, ed. Critical Terrorism Studies: A New Research Agenda. London: Routledge, 2009.
• Jackson, Robert. “Constructing Enemies: ‘Islamic Terrorism’ in Political and Academic Discourse.” Government and Opposition 42, no. 3 (2007): 394-426.
• Kumar, Ranjit. Research Methodology. London: Sage Publications, 1999.
• Lentini, Pete. “Review Essay-Understanding and Combatting Terrorism: Definitions, Origins and Strategies.” Australian Journal of Political Science 43, no. 1 (2008): 133-40.
• Lum, Cynthia, Leslie W. Kennedy, and Alison Sherley. “Are Counter-Terrorism Strategies Effective? The results of the Campbell systematic review on counter-terrorism evaluation research.” Journal of Experimental Criminology 2, no. 4 (2006): 489-516.
• Merari, Ariel. “Academic Research and Government Policy on Terrorism.” Terrorism and Political Violence 3, no. 1 (1991): 193-202.
• Ranstorp, Magnus, ed. Mapping Terrorism Research: State of the Art, Gaps and Future Direction. London: Routledge, 2006.
• ———. “Mapping Terrorism Studies after 9/11: An Academic Field of Old Problems and New Prospects.” In Critical Terrorism Studies, edited by Richard Jackson, Marie Breen Smyth, and Jeroen Gunning, 13-33. London: Routledge, 2009.
• Rapoport, David C. “The Four Waves of Rebel Terror and September 11.” In The New Global Terrorism, edited by Charles Kegley, 36-52.New Jersey: Pearson, 2008.
• Reid, Edna O. F. “Evolution of a Body of Knowledge: An Analysis of Terrorism Research.” Information Processing and Management 33, no. 1 (1997): 91-106.
• Reid, Edna, and Hsinchun Chen. “Domain Mapping of Contemporary Terrorism Research.” In Terrorism Informatics: Knowledge Management and Data Mining for Homeland Security, edited by H. Chen, E. Reid, J. Sinai, A. Silke and B. Ganor, 3-26. New York: Springer, 2008.
• Richards, Anthony. “Conceptualizing Terrorism.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 37, no. 3 (2014): 213-36. Ross, Jeffrey Ian. “Taking Stock of Research Methods and Analysis on Oppositional Political Terrorism.” The American Sociologist (2004): 26-37.
• Sageman, Marc. “The Stagnation in Terrorism Research.” Terrorism and Political Violence 26 (2014): 565-80. Satana, Nil S., Molly Inman, and Johanna Kristin Binnir. “Religion, Government Coalitions, and Terrorism.” Terrorism and Political Violence 25, no. 1 (2013): 29-52.
• Schmid, Alex P. “Comments on Marc Sageman’s Polemic “The Stagnation in Terrorism Research.” Terrorism and Political Violence 26, no. 4 (2014): 587-95.
• ———. “Introduction.” In Schmid, The Routledge Handbook, 1-37.
• ———. “The Definition of Terrorism.” In Schmid, The Routledge Handbook, 39-98.
• ———. “The Literature on Terrorism.” In Schmid, The Routledge Handbook, 457-74. ———. Political Terrorism: A Research Guide to Concepts, Theories, Data Bases and Literature. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing, 1984.
• ———, ed. The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research. London: Routledge, 2011.
• Schmid, Alex P., and Albert J. Jongman. Political Terrorism: A New Guide to Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories, and Literature. London: Transaction Publishers, 1988.
• Shepherd, Jessica. “The Rise and Rise of Terrorism Studies.” The Guardian, July 3, 2007. Accessed March 11, 2016. http://www.theguardian.com/education/2007/jul/03/ highereducation.research.
• Sil, Rudra, and Peter Katzenstein. “Analytical Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics: Reconfiguring Problems and Mechanisms across Research Traditions.” Perspectives on Politics 8, no. 2 (June 2010): 411-31.
• Silke, Andrew. “The Devil You Know: Continuing Problems with Research on Terrorism.” Terrorism and Political Violence 13, no. 4 (Winter 2001): 1-14.
• ———. “The Impact of 9/11 on Research on Terrorism.” In Mapping Terrorism Research, edited by Magnus Ranstorp, 76-93. London: Routledge, 2006.
• ———, ed. Research on Terrorism: Trends, Achievements and Failures. London: Frank Cass, 2004.
• ———. “The Road Less Travelled: Recent Trends in Terrorism Research.” In Research on Terrorism: Trens Achievements and Failures, edited by Andrew Silke, 186-213. London: Frank Cass, 2004.
• Stampnitzky, Lisa. Disciplining Terror. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
• ———. “Disciplining an Unruly Field: Terrorism Experts and Theories of Scientific/Intellectual Production.” Qual Sociol 34, no. 1 (2010): 1-19.
• Thorton, Thomas P. “Terror as a Political Agitation.” In Internal War: Problems and Approaches, edited by Harry Eckstein, 71-91. New York, The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964.
• Toros, Harmonie, and Jeroen Gunning. “Exploring A Critical Theory Approach to Terrorism Studies.” In Critical Terrorism Studies, edited by Richard Jackson, Marie Breen Smyth, and Jeroen Gunning, 87-108. London: Routledge, 2009.
• Walter, Eugene V. “Violence and The Process of Terror.” American Sociological Review 29, no. 2 (Spring 1964): 48-257.
• Weinberg, Leonard, Ami Pedahzur, and Sivan Hirsch-Hoefler. “The Challenges of Conceptualizing Terrorism.” Terrorism and Political Violence 16, no. 4 (2004), 777-94.
• Zulaika, Joseba. “Drones, Witches and Other Flying Objects: The Force of Fantasy in US Counterterrorism.” Critical Studies on Terrorism 5, no. 1 (2012): 51-68.