THE IMPORTANCE OF MIXED METHOD IN TERRORISM STUDY

Öz

This research presents a systematic review of the importance of mixed methods in terrorism studies. This paper aims to show the importance of using mixed approaches on terrorism literature. In this regard, I argue that mixed methods play an essential role in advancing terrorism studies because by using qualitative and quantitative method approaches in the same analysis, the scholar can integrate the power of both methodologies and translate the results into a helpful solution. I offer an overview of this field of research in this study. To defend this argument, I prepared two datasets and analyzed them quantitatively. A second quantitative analysis was conducted, focusing on the cases of Japan and Korea, which emerged from the first analysis and differed from the other examples. Accordingly, with quantitative analysis focusing on the cases of Korea and Japan, I will show why quantitative analysis alone is insufficient for terrorism studies. I then discuss the main results of this research and explain why the mixed method approach is essential in terrorism studies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mixed Method
• Terrorism Studies
• Qualitative Method
• Quantitative Method

TERÖRİZM ÇALIŞMALARINDA KARMA YÖNTEMİN ÖNEMİ

Öz

Bu araştırma, terörizm çalışmalarında karma yöntemlerin öneminin sistematik bir incelemesini sunmaktadır. Araştırmada, karma yöntemlerin terörizm araştırmalarının ilerlemesinde önemli bir rol oynadığı, karma yöntem ile araştırmacının aynı analiz içerisinde nitel ve nicel yöntemleri kullanarak, her iki metodolojiyi birleştirdiği ve sonuçlarını yararlı bir çözüme dönüştürebildiği savunulmaktadır. Bu argümanı savunmak maksadıyla; iki veri seti hazırlanmış ve nicel yöntem ile analiz edilmiştir. İlave olarak, ilk analiz sonucunda ortaya çıkan ve diğer örneklerden farklılık gösteren Japonya ve Kore örneklerine odaklanılarak ikinci bir nicel analiz yapılmıştır. Kore ve Japonya örneklerine odaklanan bu analizle, terörizm çalışmaları için tek başına nicel analizin neden yetersiz olduğunu gösterilmiştir. Daha sonra bu araştırmanın ana sonuçlarını tartışılmış ve terörizm çalışmalarında karma yöntem yaklaşımının neden gerekli olduğunu anlatılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Karma Yöntem
• Terörizm Çalışmaları
• Nitel Yöntem
• Nicel Yöntem

Kaynakça

1. Ahmad, R., and Yunos, Z. (2012). The Application of Mixed Method in Developing a Cyber Terrorism Framework. Journal of Information Security, Vol.03No.03, 6. doi:10.4236/jis.2012.33026
2. Altier, M. B., Horgan, J., and Thoroughgood, C. (2012). In their own words? Methodological considerations in the analysis of terrorist autobiog-raphies. Journal of strategic security, 5(4), 85-98.
3. Bakker, E. (2012). Forecasting Terrorism: The need for a more systematic approach. Journal of Strategic Security, 5(4), 69-84.
4. Berg-Schlosser, D. (2012). Mixed Methods in Comparative Politics: Prin-ciples and Applications: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
5. Berryman, D. R. (2019). Ontology, epistemology, methodology, and methods: Information for librarian researchers. Medical reference services quar-terly, 38(3), 271-279.
6. Bond, J. R. (2007). The scientification of the study of politics: some ob-servations on the behavioral evolution in political science. The Journal of Poli-tics, 69(4), 897-907.
7. Cherryholmes, C. H. (1992). Notes on pragmatism and scientific real-ism. Educational researcher, 21(6), 13-17.
8. Clark, V. L. P. and J. W. Creswell (2008). Mixing quantitative and quali-tative approaches. Handbook of emergent methods, 363.

9. Cordes, B. (1987). When terrorists do the talking: Reflections on terrorist literature. The Journal of Strategic Studies, 10(4), 150-171.
10. Crenshaw, M. (2012). The causes of terrorism. Terrorism studies: A read-er, 99-114.
11. Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE publications.
12. Davies, R. (2010). Critically examine the strengths and weaknesses of ter-rorism research giving examples from the recent literature. In Critical terrorism studies (pp. 230-250). Routledge.
13. Dewey, J. (1931). Context and thought. University of California publica-tions in philosophy, 12(3).
14. Dewey, J. (1999). The essential Dewey: Pragmatism, education, democ-racy (Vol. 1). Indiana University Press.
15. Dolnik, A. (2011). Conducting field research on terrorism: A brief pri-mer. Perspectives on Terrorism, 5(2), 3-35.
16. Elman, C., Gerring, J., and Mahoney, J. (2016). Case study research: Put-ting the quant into the qual. Sociological Methods & Research, 45(3), 375-391.
17. Fowler, W. W. (1980). An agenda for quantitative research on terrorism. RAND CORP SANTA MONICA CA.
18. Gerring, J. (2011). How good is good enough? A multidimensional, best-possible standard for research design. Political Research Quarterly, 64(3), 625-636.
19. Glaw, X., Inder, K., Kable, A., and Hazelton, M. (2017). Visual method-ologies in qualitative research: Autophotography and photo elicitation applied to mental health research. International journal of qualitative methods, 16(1), 1609406917748215.
20. Goldkuhl, G. (2012). Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative infor-mation systems research. European journal of information systems, 21(2), 135-146.
21. Gorard, S., and Taylor, C. (2004). Combining methods in educational and social research. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
22. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., and Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a con-ceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational evalua-tion and policy analysis, 11(3), 255-274.
23. Gruenewald, J., Dooley, K. M. G., Suttmoeller, M. J., Chermak, S. M., and Freilich, J. D. (2016). A mixed-method analysis of fatal attacks on police by far-right extremists. Police Quarterly, 19(2), 216-245.
24. Guba, E. G., and Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualita-tive research. Handbook of qualitative research, 2(163-194), 105.
25. Halcomb, E. J. (2015). Mixed methods research: The issues beyond com-bining methods. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 75 (3), 499-501.
26. Hall, R. (2013). Mixed Methods: In search of a paradigm. In T. Le (Ed.), Conducting Research in a Changing and Challenging World. New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc.
27. Hanson, B. (2008). Wither qualitative/quantitative?: Grounds for method-ological convergence. Quality & Quantity, 42(1), 97-111.
28. Horgan, J. (1997). Issues in terrorism research. The Police Journal, 70(3), 193-202.
29. Horgan, J. (2012). Interviewing the terrorists: Reflections on fieldwork and implications for psychological research. Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression, 4(3), 195-211.
30. Lai, F., Hu, X., Chen, G., Zou, R., and Feng, Q. (2019). Quantitative re-search on global terrorist attacks and terrorist attack classifica-tion. Sustainability, 11(5), 1487.
31. Huta, V. (2017). Meaning as a subjective experience. Journal of Con-structivist Psychology, 30(1), 20-25.
32. Klein, H. K., and Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS quarterly, 67-93.
33. LaFree, G., and Freilich, J. D. (2012). Editor’s introduction: quantitative approaches to the study of terrorism. Journal of Quantitative Criminolo-gy, 28(1), 1-5.
34. Leiken, R. S., and Brooke, S. (2006). The quantitative analysis of terror-ism and immigration: an initial exploration. Terrorism and Political Vio-lence, 18(4), 503-521.
35. Lützinger, S. (2012). The Other Side of the Story. A qualitative study of the biographies of extremists and terrorists. Germany: Bundeskriminalamt.
36. Inglehart, R., C. Haerpfer, A. Moreno, C. Welzel, K. Kizilova, J. Diez-Medrano, M. Lagos, P. Norris, E. Ponarin and B. Puranen et al. (eds.). (2022). World Values Survey: Round Six - Country-Pooled Datafile Version: www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV6.jsp. Madrid: JD Sys-tems Institute.
37. Jones, A. (2007). Tackling obesities: future choices–obesogenic environ-ments–evidence review. London: Government Office for Science.
38. Mahoney, J. (2007). Qualitative methodology and comparative poli-tics. Comparative political studies, 40(2), 122-144.
39. Merari, A. (2012). Academic research and government policy on terror-ism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 3(1), 88-102.
40. Merari, A. (2007). Psychological aspects of suicide terrorism. Psychology of terrorism, 101-115.
41. Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Meth-odological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative meth-ods. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(1), 48-76.
42. Neuman, L. W. (2007). Social research methods, 6/E. Pearson Education India.
43. Norris, J. J., and Grol-Prokopczyk, H. (2018). Entrapment allegations in right-wing terrorism cases: A mixed-methods analysis. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 53(1), 77-88.
44. Ortner, S. B. (2016). Subjectivity and cultural critique. Anthropological Theory, 5(1): 31-52.
45. Pew Research Center. (2018). Globally, People Point to ISIS and Climate Change as Leading Security Threats, Pew Research Center.
46. Pluye, P., Robert, E., Cargo, M., Bartlett, G., O’cathain, A., Griffiths, F., and Rousseau, M. C. (2011). Proposal: A mixed methods appraisal tool for sys-tematic mixed studies reviews. Montréal: McGill University, 2(1), 1-8.
47. Quine, O. (1951). Two dogmas of empiricism. In Can theories be refut-ed? (pp. 41-64). Springer, Dordrecht.
48. Reid, E. F., and Chen, H. (2007). Mapping the contemporary terrorism re-search domain. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(1), 42-56.
49. Reid, E. O. (1997). Evolution of a body of knowledge: An analysis of ter-rorism research. Information Processing & Management, 33(1), 91-106.
50. Sandelowski, M., Docherty, S., and Emden, C. (1997). Qualitative meta-synthesis: Issues and techniques. Research in nursing & health, 20(4), 365-371.
51. Schuurman, B. (2020). Research on terrorism, 2007–2016: A review of data, methods, and authorship. Terrorism and Political Violence, 32(5), 1011-1026.
52. Shareia, B. F. (2015). Qualitative and quantitative case study research method on social science: Accounting perspective. International Journal of Eco-nomics and Management Engineering, 10(12), 3849-3854.
53. Silke, A. (2001). The devil you know: Continuing problems with research on terrorism. Terrorism and political violence, 13(4), 1-14.
54. Simon, P. (2015). Ontology. A data quality ontology for the secondary use of EHR data. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings (Vol. 2015, p. 1937). American Medical Informatics Association.
55. Small, M. L. (2011). How to conduct a mixed methods study: Recent trends in a rapidly growing literature. Annual review of sociology, 37(1), 57-86.
56. Smith, A. G., Suedfeld, P., Conway III, L. G., and Winter, D. G. (2008). The language of violence: Distinguishing terrorist from nonterrorist groups by thematic content analysis. Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict, 1(2), 142-163.
57. Storey, J. (2007). Human resource management: Still marching on, or marching out. Human resource management: A critical text, 1(1), 3-32.
58. Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C., and Teddlie, C. B. (1998). Mixed Methodo-logy: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches: SAGE Publications.
59. Taylor, C. (2004). Combining methods in educational and social re-search. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
60. Teddlie, C., and Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. SAGE Publications.
61. Teymur, S. (2007). A conceptual map for understanding the terrorist re-cruitment process: Observation and analysis of DHKP /C, PKK, and Turkish Hezbollah terrorist organizations (Order No. 3288287). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. (304814594). Retrieved from https://ezproxy.lis.nsysu.edu.tw/ezproxy/Authentication/Authentication_Interface.php?url= /dissertations-theses/conceptual-map-understanding-terrorist/docview/304814594/se-2
62. Thaler, K. M. (2016). Mixed methods research in the study of political and social violence and conflict. Journal of mixed methods research, 11(1), 59-76.
63. Tiwari, A., Chan, K. L., Cheung, D. S. T., Fong, D. Y. T., Yan, E. C. W., and Tang, D. H. M. (2015). The differential effects of intimate terrorism and sit-uational couple violence on mental health outcomes among abused Chinese women: a mixed-method study. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 1-12.
64. Yauch, C. A., and Steudel, H. J. (2003). Complementary use of qualitative and quantitative cultural assessment methods. Organizational research meth-ods, 6(4), 465-481.
65. Yilmaz, I. (2009). Patterns of Differential Involvement in Terrorist Activi-ties: Evidence from DHKP/C and Turkish Hezbollah. (Doctoral Doctoral Disser-tation), Virginia Commonwealth University, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.
66. Yvonne Feilzer, M. (2010). "Doing Mixed Methods Research Pragmati-cally: Implications for the Rediscovery of Pragmatism as a Research Paradigm." Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 6-16.