Advertisement

The Global Terrorism Database, 1970–2010

Chapter
  • 1.8k Downloads

Abstract

Terrorism event databases provide systematized descriptive information about terrorist attacks from unclassified sources making the attack the unit of analysis. These databases generally follow the classic journalistic format of providing information on who is responsible for an attack, what happened, where it happened, when it happened and to the extent that it is known, how it happened. There have been a dozen or more major systematic efforts to build terrorism event databases over the past four decades. Because terrorism is a type of behavior that is difficult to study by police reports or victim or offender surveys, event databases have come to fill an important role. At the present moment, the longest running, most comprehensive of these data bases is the Global Terrorism Database (GTD) maintained by the START Consortium at the University of Maryland. Because most terrorists seek publicity, event databases that rely on print and electronic media are likely more useful for studying terrorism than most other types of crime. Nevertheless, event data have important weaknesses, most notably media inaccuracies; conflicting information or false, multiple or no claims of responsibility; and government censorship and disinformation. We use the GTD to describe the characteristics of world-wide terrorism from 1970 to 2010. We conclude with some observations about the future of terrorism event data bases.

Keywords

Terrorist Attack Total Fatality Terrorist Group Defense Advance Research Project Agency International Terrorism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    LaFree G, Dugan L (2007) Introducing the global terrorism database. Terrorism and Political Violence 19: 181–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Merari A (1991) Academic research and government policy on terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence 3:88–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Horgan J (2008) From profiles to pathways and roots to routes: perspectives from psychology on radicalization into terrorism. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 618:80–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Smith BL, Damphousse KR, Jackson F, Sellers A (2002) The prosecution and punishment of international terrorists in federal courts: 1980–1998. Criminology and Public Policy 1: 311–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    LaFree G (2010) The global terrorism database: accomplishments and challenges. Perspectives on Terrorism 4:24–46Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    LaFree G (2012) Generating terrorism event databases: results from the global terrorism database, 1970 to 2008. In: Lum C, Kennedy L (eds) Evidence-based counter terrorism. Springer, New York, pp. 41–64Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mickolus EF (2002) How do we know we’re winning the war against terrorism? Issues in measurement. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 25:151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mickolus EF, Sandler T, Murdock JM, Flemming P (2010) International terrorism: attributes of terrorist events (ITERATE). Vinyard Software, Dunn LoringGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wigle J (2010) Introducing the Worldwide Incidents Tracking System (WITS). Perspectives on Terrorism 4:3–23Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schmid A, Jongman AJ (1988) Political terrorism: a new guide to actors, authors, concepts, databases, theories and literature. Amsterdam: North-HollandGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fishman M (1980) Manufacturing the news. University of TX Press, AustinGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jenkins BM (1975) International terrorism: a new model of conflict. In: Carlton D, Schaerf C (eds) International terrorism and world security. Croom Helm, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    LaFree G (1999) A summary and review of cross-national comparative studies of homicide. In: Smith MD, Zahn MA (eds) Homicide: a sourcebook of social research. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gove WR, Hughes M, Geerken M (1985) An affirmative answer with minor qualifications. Criminology 23:451–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    O’Brien R (1985) Crime and victimization. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pinkerton Global Assessment Services (1995) Annual risk assessment 1994. Pinkerton’s Inc., Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jenkins BM (2006) The New Age of Terrorism. In DG Kamien (ed), Homeland Security Handbook. Mcgraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations