Skip to content

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Original languageEnglish
Number of pages20
JournalContemporary Social Science
DOIs
DateSubmitted - 2019
DateAccepted/In press - 26 Apr 2019
DatePublished (current) - 19 May 2019

Abstract

The current focus in ethical discourse is mostly on protecting research subjects from potential harm arising directly from participation in research (Hammersley & Traianou, 2012). Researching conflict and ‘terrorism’ poses particular challenges around accessing research subjects and meeting standard requirements for informed consent. But there are also distinct and broader ethical questions that arise around potential harm to research subjects, and indeed to other actors, including researchers themselves. Fieldwork may pose considerable risks to researchers, both physical and psychological, whilst the politically sensitive nature of research may also carry reputational and professional risks. Harm to research subjects, meanwhile, may arise not only from the research process itself, but more broadly and more significantly from powerful actors – often parties to the conflicts under investigation – seeking to access, make use of, or influence/manipulate either research findings, or how research is received, understood and used. The former aspects bring particular challenges when it comes to confidentiality and the security of data, whilst the latter requires that the societal impact of research be carefully considered. In either case, an understanding of social power, and the power of the state in particular, is crucial. The power of corporations is, of course, also of relevance in such discussions (Alvesalo-Kuusi and Whyte, 2018), although it is not the focus of this article.

    Research areas

  • Terrorism, Extremism, Ethics, Coercion, Deception

Download statistics

No data available

Documents

Documents

  • Full-text PDF (final published version)

    Rights statement: This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Taylor and Francis at https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2019.1616107 . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.

    Final published version, 2 MB, PDF document

    Licence: CC BY

DOI

View research connections

Related faculties, schools or groups