Too dangerous for fieldwork? The challenge of institutional risk-management in primary research on conflict, violence and ‘Terrorism’

Sluka, Jeffrey A.

doi:10.1080/21582041.2018.1498534

Cited by 21 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the 1990s, resistance receded, but it has been revitalized in the last ten years or so. Books and articles criticizing the review system have been published, and meetings have convened in order to create an international front against it (Dingwall, ; Schrag, ; van den Hoonard, ; Iphofen, ; Sluka, ). Ethical review of social sciences and the humanities has been described as “censorship” (Bell and Elliott, ), “unethical” and “anti‐democratic” (Dingwall, ), “founded on ignorance, haste, and disrespect” (Schrag, , p. 192), and as an “ethics rupture” (Iphofen, ).…”

Section: No Danger?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Research Ethics Apply to Us?

Hansson¹

2020

Theoria

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: No Danger?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Research Ethics Apply to Us?

Hansson¹

2020

Theoria

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Accessing intervention clients also can raise ethical issues. 21 This is not unique to CVE evaluation but more generally relates to accessing primary data for terrorism research. 22 Another key challenge is demonstrating causation (i.e., the intervention causes disengagement or de-radicalization).…”

Section: Evaluation Challenges Of Case-managed Cve Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Case-Managed Approaches to Counter Radicalization and Violent Extremism: An Example of the Proactive Integrated Support Model (PRISM) Intervention

Cherney

Belton

2019

Studies in Conflict & Terrorism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years there has been the proliferation of counterradicalization programs that incorporate a case management approach involving individually tailored intervention plans. The evaluation of casemanaged countering violent extremism (CVE) interventions is challenging. This article provides results from research that evaluated a custody-based case-managed intervention delivered to convicted terrorists and individuals identified as at risk of radicalization in the Australian state of New South Wales, called the Proactive Integrated Support Model. A quantitative assessment of disengagement based on the coding of client case note data is provided. Results provide data on the background of clients, their intervention goals, and illustrate client change over time. Lessons for CVE evaluation and the role of formal interventions in facilitating disengagement are highlighted.

show abstract

“…We certainly agree with his overall argument that instead of narrowly focusing on institutional reputational protection, RECs need to take more seriously the protection of researchers, especially those studying powerful groups. Though there is very little guidance on this from the professional associations or the research councils, as noted above there are multiple dangers encountered by researchersincluding physical, emotional, reputational/professional and ethicalthat arise when researching the actions of powerful groups in situations related to political violence (Sluka, 2012(Sluka, , 2018. Such dangers, as we have outlined here, can include pressures to amend or edit work (Hutcheon, 2015;Sluka, 2012), as well as legal interventions by the state authorities or law enforcement agencies.…”

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Secrecy, coercion and deception in research on ‘terrorism’ and ‘extremism’

Massoumi

Mills

Miller³

2019

Contemporary Social Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article calls for more understanding of the ethical challenges and dilemmas that arise as a result of state involvement in academic research on 'terrorism' and 'extremism'. It suggests that researchers and research institutions need to be more attentive to the possibilities of co-option, compromise, conflict of interests and other ethical issues. The paper empirically examines the relationship between academic researchers and the security state. It highlights three key ways in which ethical and professional standards in social scientific research can be compromised: (1) Interference with the evidence base (through a lack of transparency on data and conflicts of interest); (2) Collaboration on research supporting deception by the state which undermines the ability of citizens to participate in democratic processes; and (3) Collaboration on research legitimating human rights abuses, and other coercive state practices. These issues are widespread, but neglected, across: literature on 'terrorism' and 'extremism'; literature on research ethics; and, in practical ethical safeguards and procedures within research institutions. In order to address these issues more effectively, we propose that any assessment of research ethics must consider the broader power relations that shape knowledge production as well as the societal impact of research. In focusing on the centrality of statesthe most powerful actors in the field of 'terrorism' and 'extremism'our approach moves beyond the rather narrow procedural approaches that currently predominate. We argue more attention to the power of the state in research ethics will not only help to make visible, and combat, ethically problematic issues, but will also help to protect the evidence base from contamination. We conclude by proposing a series of practical measures to address the problems highlighted.

show abstract

Too dangerous for fieldwork? The challenge of institutional risk-management in primary research on conflict, violence and ‘Terrorism’

Cited by 21 publications

References 70 publications

Does Research Ethics Apply to Us?

Does Research Ethics Apply to Us?

Evaluating Case-Managed Approaches to Counter Radicalization and Violent Extremism: An Example of the Proactive Integrated Support Model (PRISM) Intervention

Secrecy, coercion and deception in research on ‘terrorism’ and ‘extremism’

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About