| ID | 144883 |
| Title Proper | Response to “key issues and research agendas in lone wolf terrorism” |
| Language | ENG |
| Author | Becker, Michael |
| Summary / Abstract (Note) | In “Key Issues and Research Agendas in Lone Wolf Terrorism,” published in Issue 3 of 2015, Ramón Spaaij and Mark S. Hamm (hereafter SH) mount an extended critique of the field of lone wolf terrorism studies, arguing that it suffers from significant definitional, methodological, and inferential issues. They are particularly critical of my article, “Explaining Lone Wolf Target Selection in the United States,” arguing that it “brings into sharp relief a number of key issues regarding the quality and rigor of lone wolf terrorism research.” This article, which analyzed a database of 84 lone wolf attacks that took place in the United States between 1940 and 2012, had three main findings regarding the process by which American lone wolves choose targets: (1) that lone wolves are constrained by their relative weakness compared to violent organizations, and must thus select “softer,” usually civilian targets; (2) that this relative weakness also drives them to use firearms, mainly, as the weapon of choice; and (3) that lone wolves choose targets at the intersection of their daily routines—for example, the route they take to and from work—and the ideology that they claim drives their behavior. For example, antigovernment lone wolves tend to select targets symbolic of government—monuments, courthouses, and so on—that are located in familiar areas. SH do not, in general, dispute these findings, but rather call into question the validity of some of the methods and approaches used to arrive at them. |
| `In' analytical Note | Studies in Conflict and Terrorism Vol. 39, No.5; May 2016: p.472-476 |
| Journal Source | Studies in Conflict and Terrorism Vol: 39 No 5 |
| Key Words | Lone Wolf Terrorism ; Research Agendas |