Citation

Stump JL. Behav. Sci. Terrorism Polit. Aggres. 2013; 5(3): 217-224.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2013, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/19434472.2011.629579

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Recently, Jackson offered a minimally foundationalist, contingent redefinition of terrorism. This response article raises four main concerns with Jackson's attempted redefinition. The concerns in short are: (1) the redefinition of terrorism is voiced from a narrow methodological perspective that unduly limits the scope of possible ways to study terrorism in a systematic, critical mode; (2) it reifies terrorism as a form of extraordinary violence, which is problematic because it leads researchers to assume what could be explained and it leads researchers to miss salient and significant empirical traces of terrorism and counter-terrorism; (3) the redefinition of terrorism and the particular methodological stance it works from are insufficiently reflexive for a completely constructivist approach to terrorism studies; (4) it is less useful at organizing terrorism studies than a systematic clarification of the ontological and epistemological frameworks available to scholars studying terrorism.