Premium
Yes, No, and Maybe in the World of Terrorism Research: Reflections on the Commentaries
Author(s) -
Kruglanski Arie W.,
Chen Xiaoyan,
Dechesne Mark,
Fishman Shira,
Orehek Edward
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
political psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.419
H-Index - 95
eISSN - 1467-9221
pISSN - 0162-895X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00705.x
Subject(s) - library science , citation , sociology , media studies , computer science
Responses to our target article afford a welcome opportunity to discuss fundamental issues in terrorism research, related to substantive as well as philosophical and methodological concerns. Some of the comments offered expand the scope of the discussion and address important levels of analysis that, even though falling beyond the scope of our specific contribution, might well be included in a multifaceted analysis of suicidal terrorism. Other comments set the occasion for clarifying aspects of our analysis that may have been obscure, yet others stimulate a dialogue about the role of theory, data, and policy recommendations in a domain of phenomena as refractory to controlled empirical investigation as is terrorism. Six of the seven commentators (Crenshaw, Post, Victoroff, Moghaddam, Mintz & Brule) expressed (varying degrees of) appreciation for our work, while the seventh (Bloom) expressed disapproval. Thus, Crenshaw (2009) saw our argument as “a serious and discerning examination of a perturbing subject that is high on the national policy agenda” and stated that “The analysis is Political Psychology, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2009