| Summary/Abstract |
The number of journal articles that rely on data derived from interviews with extremists has increased substantially over the past decade. This burgeoning invites the possibility that standardized reporting practices have not been explicitly clarified. To date, there has not been an adequate review of the methodological transparency of journal articles that include interviews with extremists. After content analyzing 48 articles involving such interviews, we found that field-wide methodological transparency is lacking. Recommendations are made with regard to enhancing methodological transparency, with the implication that consensus on optimal reporting practices within the extremism literature should be reached soon.
|