|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
178946
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
We thank Marc Sageman for his interest in our article and are grateful to Terrorism and Political Violence for the opportunity to respond. Our study was part of a three-year grant-funded project entitled “Pathways, Processes, Factors, and Roles for Terrorist, Disengagement, Re-engagement, and Recidivism.” The aim was to better understand individual-level disengagement from terrorism, as well as re-engagement and recidivism. We conducted two extensive reviews of literature from relevant disciplines—one on terrorist disengagement and another on terrorist re-engagement and recidivism.1 We then collected and analyzed data from a sample of autobiographies penned by individuals formerly involved in terrorist groups and conducted in-depth, in-person interviews with another sample of individuals who had left terrorist groups. The questionnaire and codebook that we developed to capture information from our autobiographical sample compiled data on subjects’ lives prior to their involvement in terrorism, important aspects of their involvement in terrorism including the nature of the groups they belonged to, and the conditions surrounding their disengagement and re-engagement and/or recidivism. An entire section of our questionnaire and codebook are dedicated to investigating not only whether individuals re-engaged, but the circumstances of that re-engagement and what we identified as hypothesized risk factors. We reiterate this because Sageman implies throughout his critique that we were using data that we originally compiled to study something else (disengagement) to then “derive a recidivism rate.” We did not. Although our findings on disengagement were analyzed and published first,2 the purpose of the broader project was always to consider re-engagement and recidivism. This informed our review of relevant literature, generation of hypotheses, and the development of data collection protocols.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
188762
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Research pays little attention to the diverse roles individuals hold within terrorism. This limits our understanding of the varied experiences of the terrorist and their implications. This study examines how a terrorist’s role(s) influence the likelihood of and reasons for disengagement. Using data from autobiographies and in-person interviews with former terrorists, we find that role conflict and role strain increase the probability of disengagement. We show those in certain roles, especially leadership and violent roles, incur greater sunk costs and possess fewer alternatives making exit less likely. Finally, certain roles are associated with the experience of different push/pull factors for disengagement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
153955
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
A deeper understanding of terrorist disengagement offers important insights for policymakers and practitioners seeking to persuade individuals to leave these groups. Current research highlights the importance of certain “push” and “pull” factors in explaining disengagement. However, such studies tell us very little about the relative frequencies at which these hypothesized factors are associated with leaving in the terrorist population. Using data collected from eighty-seven autobiographical accounts, we find that push, rather than pull, factors are more commonly cited as playing a large role in individuals' disengagement decisions and that the experience of certain push factors increases the probability an individual will choose to leave. Importantly, disillusionment with the group's strategy or actions, disagreements with group leaders or members, dissatisfaction with one's day-to-day tasks, and burnout are more often reported as driving disengagement decisions than de-radicalization. Finally, our results suggest that ideological commitment may moderate one's susceptibility to pull factors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|