Disciplining an Unruly Field: Terrorism Experts and Theories of Scientific/Intellectual Production

Abstract

Terrorism" has proved to be a highly problematic object of expertise. Terrorism studies fails to conform to the most common sociological notions of what a field of intellectual production ought to look like, and has been described by participants and observers alike as a failure. Yet the study of terrorism is a booming field, whether measured in terms of funding, publications, or numbers of aspiring experts. This paper aims to explain, first, the disjuncture between terrorism studies in practice and the sociological literature on fields of intellectual production, and, second, the reasons for experts' "rhetoric of failure" about their field. I suggest that terrorism studies, rather than conforming to the notion of an ideal-typical profession, discipline, or bounded "intellectual field," instead represents an interstitial space of knowledge production. I further argue that the "rhetoric of failure" can be understood as a strategy through which terrorism researchers mobilize sociological theories of scientific/cultural fields as both an interpretive resource in their attempts to make sense of the apparent oddness of their field and their situation, and as schemas, or models, in their attempts to reshape the field. I conclude that sociologists ought to expand our vision to incorporate the many arenas of expertise that occupy interstitial spaces, moving and travelling between multiple fields.

The sociology of intellectuals in the 20th and 21st century

“…As he argues, Heidegger's unique “trajectory, leading across different social universes, predisposed him better than a plane trajectory to speak and think in several spaces at once, to address audiences other than his peers” (Bourdieu, , p. 47). Bourdieu's approach remains influential especially thanks to handy concepts such as that of the field, which was taken up by other sociologists of intellectuals and experts (Kauppi, ; Stampnitzky, ; Steinmetz, ). Nonetheless, as many argued before (Alexander, ; Jenkins, ), Bourdieu's original model is fundamentally deterministic in that it sees habitus as an inescapable, all‐defining characteristic that leads to definite results in the field.…”

Producing Knowledge, Producing Credibility: British Think-Tank Researchers and the Construction of Policy Reports

“…In this diverse social space, the credibility which underpins a think-tank intellectual's expertise is also hybrid. Whilst Medvetz's approach is valuable, it betrays an established tendency within the sociology of knowledge-the assumption that intellectual life is led by a 'will to institutionalise' (Eyal and Pok 2015;Stampnitzky 2011Stampnitzky , 2013a. By focussing on the capital profiles and structural relations of an intellectual 'field in the making', Medvetz-like Bourdieu-purifies the wider social world (Eyal and Pok 2011, pp.…”

Understanding policy research in liminal spaces: Think tank responses to diverging principles of legitimacy

“…This work includes Breslau's (1997) study of contract research organizations and the body of research that explores the thick boundaries between the military, security agencies, and the state (e.g. Eyal, 2002;Solovey, 2013;Stampnitzky, 2011Stampnitzky, , 2013.…”