Advertisement

Assessing and Comparing Data Sources for Terrorism Research

  • Ivan Sascha SheehanEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series on Evidence-Based Crime Policy book series (SSEBCP, volume 3)

Abstract

Until recently, much of the research on terrorism was theoretical, based on small-n studies. The growing availability of large-n terrorism databases has provided great opportunities for terrorism researchers to identify cases and test and develop new hypotheses that are relevant to the field. But how good is the quality of the data in these databases? And how should the researcher go about choosing between competing databases? This chapter describes the need for a framework to evaluate the quality of terrorism data. Drawing on the concept of a “criterial framework” and “best practice” criterial standards developed to bridge qualitative/quantitative and small-n/large-n divides, the chapter also proposes a set of criteria to evaluate terrorism data and uses these criteria to evaluate and compare a series of quantitative terrorism events databases.

Keywords

Terrorist Event Terrorist Incident Suicide Attack Terrorism Data Global 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. Abadie, A., & Gardeazabal, J. (2003). The economic costs of conflict: A Case Study for the Basque Country. American Economic Review, 93(1), 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brady, H. E., & Collier, D. (2004). Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards. Berkeley: Rowman & Littlefield and Berkeley Public Policy Press.Google Scholar
  3. Collier, D., Brady, H. E., & Seawright, J. (2004). Sources of leverage in causal inference: Toward an alternative view of methodology. In H. Brady & D. Collier (Eds.), Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards (pp. 229–266). Berkeley: Rowman & Littlefield and Berkeley Public Policy Press.Google Scholar
  4. Collier, D., & Mahon, J. E., Jr. (1993). Conceptual ‘stretching’ revisited: Adapting categories in comparative analysis. American Political Science Review, 87, 845–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Drakos, K. (2009). Security economics: A guide for data availability and needs. Economics of Security Working Paper 6, Berlin: Economics of Security. Retrieved July 29, 2011 from https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.94892.de/diw_econsec0006.pdf.
  6. Enders, W., & Sandler, T. (1993). The effectiveness of anti-terrorism policies: Vector-autoregression-intervention analysis. American Political Science Review, 87, 829–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Enders, W., & Sandler, T. (1996). Terrorism and foreign direct investment in Spain and Greece. Kyklos, 49(3), 331–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Enders, W., Sandler, T., & Parise, G. F. (1992). An econometric analysis of the impact of terrorism on tourism. Kyklos, 45, 531–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Engene, J. O. (2006). TWEED code book. Bergen: University of Bergen: Department of Comparative Politics.Google Scholar
  10. Engene, J. O. (2007). Five decades of terrorism in Europe: The TWEED data set. Journal of Peace Research, 44(1), 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fleischer, A., & Buccola, S. (2002). War, terror, and the tourism market in Israel. Applied Economics, 34(11), 1335–1343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fowler, W. W. (1981). Terrorism data bases: A comparison of missions methods, and systems. Retrieved July 29, 2011 from http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/notes/2005/N1503.pdf.
  13. Geddes, B. (1990). How the cases you choose affect the answers you get: Selection bias in comparative politics. Political Analysis, 2, 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gerring, J. (1999). What makes a concept good? A criterial framework for understanding concept formation in the social sciences. Polity, 31(3), 357–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerring, J. (2001). Social Science Methodology: A criterial framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gerring, J. (2010). Social science methodology: Tasks, strategies, criteria. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Goertz, G. (2005). Social Science Concepts: A user’s guide. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Guba, E. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29(2), 75–91.Google Scholar
  19. Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing Consent. New York, NY: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  20. Herrera, Y., & Devesh, K. (2007). Improving data quality: Actors, incentives and capabilities. Political Analysis, 15, 365–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jenkins, B., & Johnson, J. (1975). International Terrorism: A chronology, 1968–1974. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation.Google Scholar
  22. Krueger, A. B., & Laitin, D. D. (2004, May 17). Faulty terror report card. Washington Post, p. A21.Google Scholar
  23. Krueger, A. B., & Laitin, D. D. (2004). Misunderestimating terrorism. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved July 29, 2011 from http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/terrorism1.html.
  24. La Free, G. L. (2010). The global terrorism database: Accomplishments and challenges. Perspectives on Terrorism, IV(1), 24–46.Google Scholar
  25. La Free, G. L. (2011). Generating terrorism event data bases: Results from the global terrorism database, 1970–2008, College Park, MD: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  26. Lazarsfeld, P., & Barfeld, A. H. (1951). Qualitative measurement in the social sciences. Classification, typologies and indices. In D. Lerner & H. Lasswell (Eds.), The Policy Sciences (pp. 155–192). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lieberman, E. S. (2010). Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Best practices in the development of historically oriented replication databases. Annual Review of Political Science, 13, 37–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Merari, A. (2010). Driven to death: Psychological and social aspects of suicide terrorism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Mickolus, E. F. (2002). How do we know we’re winning the war against terrorists? Issues in measurement. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 25, 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mickolus, E. (2003). International terrorism attributes of terrorist events (ITERATE) data codebook. Dunn Loring: Vinyard Software.Google Scholar
  31. Munck, G. L., & Verkuilen, J. (2002). Measuring democracy: Evaluating alternative indices. Comparative Political Studies, 35, 5–34.Google Scholar
  32. Nitsch, V., & Schumacher, D. (2004). Terrorism and international trade: An empirical investigation. European Journal of Political Economy, 20(2), 423–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Paull, P. (1982). International terrorism: the propaganda war. Master’s thesis, University of San Francisco.Google Scholar
  34. Reid, E. O. (1997). Evolution of a body of knowledge: An analysis of terrorism research. Information Processing & Management, 33(1), 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Sandler, T., Arce, D. G., & Enders, W. E. (2008). Copenhagen consensus 2008 challenge paper: Terrorism. Retrieved July 29, 2011 from http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Files/Filer/CC08/Papers/0%20Challenge%20Papers/CP_Terrrorism_-_Sandler.pdf.
  37. Sandler, T., & Enders, W. (2004). An economic perspective on transnational terrorism. European Journal of Political Economy, 20(2), 301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sandler, T., & Enders, W. (2008). Economic consequences of terrorism in developed and developing countries: An overview. In P. Keefer & N. Loayza (Eds.), Terrorism and economic development (pp. 17–47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Schmid, A. (1983). Political terrorism: A research guide to concepts, theories, databases, and literature. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
  40. Schmid, A. P., & Jongman, A. J. (1988). Political Terrorism: A New Guide to Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories, and Literature. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books, pp. 5–6.Google Scholar
  41. Schmid, A. (2004). Statistics on terrorism: The challenge of measuring trends, global terrorism. Forum on Crime and Society, 4(1–2), 49–69.Google Scholar
  42. Schmid, A., & Jongman, A. J. (2005). Political Terrorism: A new guide to actors, authors, concepts, data, theories, and literature. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  43. Sheehan, I. S. (2007). When Terrorism and Counterterrorism Clash: The war on terrorism and the transformation of terrorist activity. Amherst: Cambria Press.Google Scholar
  44. Sheehan, I. S. (2009). Has the war on terrorism changed the terrorist threat? Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 32(8), 743–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. START National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. (2011). Codebook GTD Variables and Inclusion Criteria. Retrieved July 29, 2011 from http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/downloads/Codebook.pdf.
  46. Wardlaw, G. (1982). Political Terrorism. Melbourne: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  47. Wigle, J. (2010). Introducing the worldwide incidents tracking system (WITS). Perspectives on Terrorism, 4(1), 3–23.Google Scholar
  48. Wilkinson, P. (1986). Trends in international terrorism and the American response. In L. Freedman & C. Hill (Eds.), Terrorism & International Order (pp. 37–55). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public and International AffairsUniversity of BaltimoreBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations