Advancing A Confused Subfield: A Review of Crenshaw and LaFree’s Countering Terrorism

Philip Hultquist
{"title":"Advancing A Confused Subfield: A Review of Crenshaw and LaFree’s Countering Terrorism","authors":"Philip Hultquist","doi":"10.1080/23296151.2019.1586350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The subfield of terrorism studies remains confused about its principal concept. Few agree on what the term means, which creates obvious problems for operationalization. Crenshaw and LaFree (2016) address this issue directly and find a way to advance the subfield by offering unique analytical insights. They further our knowledge of the rarity of terrorist plots as well as the method for how most are thwarted. Moreover, they provide a fruitful critique of government overclassification of data that makes the production of sound policy-relevant research difficult, which has the perverse effect of making counterterrorism less effective. Nonetheless, the book suffers from conceptual confusion about the tactic of terrorism when it limits its primary scope to a subset of groups that use the tactic frequently, but not exclusively—that is, those Salafi groups that use an extremist interpretation of the term jihad. The book should be read widely, by researchers and practitioners, to learn from its insights, but also critically in the hope that future work can advance this subfield to examine terrorism for the full range of ideological groups who use the tactic.","PeriodicalId":276818,"journal":{"name":"Special Operations Journal","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Special Operations Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23296151.2019.1586350","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The subfield of terrorism studies remains confused about its principal concept. Few agree on what the term means, which creates obvious problems for operationalization. Crenshaw and LaFree (2016) address this issue directly and find a way to advance the subfield by offering unique analytical insights. They further our knowledge of the rarity of terrorist plots as well as the method for how most are thwarted. Moreover, they provide a fruitful critique of government overclassification of data that makes the production of sound policy-relevant research difficult, which has the perverse effect of making counterterrorism less effective. Nonetheless, the book suffers from conceptual confusion about the tactic of terrorism when it limits its primary scope to a subset of groups that use the tactic frequently, but not exclusively—that is, those Salafi groups that use an extremist interpretation of the term jihad. The book should be read widely, by researchers and practitioners, to learn from its insights, but also critically in the hope that future work can advance this subfield to examine terrorism for the full range of ideological groups who use the tactic.
推进一个混乱的子领域:评述克伦肖和拉弗里的反恐思想
恐怖主义研究的分支领域仍然对其主要概念感到困惑。很少有人对该术语的含义达成一致,这给操作带来了明显的问题。Crenshaw和LaFree(2016)直接解决了这个问题,并通过提供独特的分析见解找到了一种推进子领域的方法。他们进一步加深了我们对恐怖主义阴谋的罕见性以及大多数被挫败的方法的认识。此外,他们对政府对数据的过度分类提出了富有成效的批评,这种分类使得合理的政策相关研究的产生变得困难,这不利于反恐的有效性。尽管如此,当这本书将其主要范围限制在经常使用恐怖主义策略的一小部分组织,而不是唯一的时候,这本书在恐怖主义策略的概念上存在混乱,也就是说,那些使用极端主义解释圣战一词的萨拉菲组织。这本书应该被研究人员和实践者广泛阅读,从其见解中学习,但也要批判性地希望未来的工作可以推进这一分支领域,以研究使用这种策略的各种意识形态团体的恐怖主义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信