SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Social And Humanities Sciences / 2023 / Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2

THE IMPORTANCE OF MIXED METHOD IN TERRORISM STUDY

TERÖRİZM ÇALIŞMALARINDA KARMA YÖNTEMİN ÖNEMİ

Ahmet Yiğitalp TULGA
Pages
75–102
Publication Date
2023-09-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

I then discuss the main results of this research and explain why the mixed method approach is essential in terrorism studies.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This research presents a systematic review of the importance of mixed methods in terrorism studies.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this regard, I argue that mixed methods play an essential role in advancing terrorism studies because by using qualitative and quantitative method approaches in the same analysis, the scholar can integrate the power of both methodologies and translate the results into a helpful solution.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:I then discuss the main results of this research and explain why the mixed method approach is essential in terrorism studies.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Karma Yöntem · Terörizm Çalışmaları · Nitel Yöntem

Abstract

This research presents a systematic review of the importance of mixed methods in terrorism studies. This paper aims to show the importance of using mixed approaches on terrorism literature. In this regard, I argue that mixed methods play an essential role in advancing terrorism studies because by using qualitative and quantitative method approaches in the same analysis, the scholar can integrate the power of both methodologies and translate the results into a helpful solution. I offer an overview of this field of research in this study. To defend this argument, I prepared two datasets and analyzed them quantitatively. A second quantitative analysis was conducted, focusing on the cases of Japan and Korea, which emerged from the first analysis and differed from the other examples. Accordingly, with quantitative analysis focusing on the cases of Korea and Japan, I will show why quantitative analysis alone is insufficient for terrorism studies. I then discuss the main results of this research and explain why the mixed method approach is essential in terrorism studies.

Özet

Bu araştırma, terörizm çalışmalarında karma yöntemlerin öneminin sistematik bir incelemesini sunmaktadır. Araştırmada, karma yöntemlerin terörizm araştırmalarının ilerlemesinde önemli bir rol oynadığı, karma yöntem ile araştırmacının aynı analiz içerisinde nitel ve nicel yöntemleri kullanarak, her iki metodolojiyi birleştirdiği ve sonuçlarını yararlı bir çözüme dönüştürebildiği savunulmaktadır. Bu argümanı savunmak maksadıyla; iki veri seti hazırlanmış ve nicel yöntem ile analiz edilmiştir. İlave olarak, ilk analiz sonucunda ortaya çıkan ve diğer örneklerden farklılık gösteren Japonya ve Kore örneklerine odaklanılarak ikinci bir nicel analiz yapılmıştır. Kore ve Japonya örneklerine odaklanan bu analizle, terörizm çalışmaları için tek başına nicel analizin neden yetersiz olduğunu gösterilmiştir. Daha sonra bu araştırmanın ana sonuçlarını tartışılmış ve terörizm çalışmalarında karma yöntem yaklaşımının neden gerekli olduğunu anlatılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

TULGA, A. Y. (2023). THE IMPORTANCE OF MIXED METHOD IN TERRORISM STUDY. International Journal of Social And Humanities Sciences, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 75–102. https://ajindex.com/articles/969109

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Ahmad, R., and Yunos, Z. (2012). The Application of Mixed Method in Developing a Cyber Terrorism Framework. Journal of Information Security, Vol.03No.03, 6. doi:10.4236/jis.2012.33026 Altier, M. B., Horgan, J., and Thoroughgood, C. (2012). In their own words? Methodological considerations in the analysis of terrorist autobiog-raphies. Journal of strategic security, 5(4), 85-98.
  2. Bakker, E. (2012). Forecasting Terrorism: The need for a more systematic approach. Journal of Strategic Security, 5(4), 69-84.
  3. Berg-Schlosser, D. (2012). Mixed Methods in Comparative Politics: Prin-ciples and Applications: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Berryman, D. R. (2019). Ontology, epistemology, methodology, and methods: Information for librarian researchers. Medical reference services quar-terly, 38(3), 271-279.
  4. Bond, J. R. (2007). The scientification of the study of politics: some ob-servations on the behavioral evolution in political science. The Journal of Poli-tics, 69(4), 897-907.
  5. Cherryholmes, C. H. (1992). Notes on pragmatism and scientific real-ism. Educational researcher, 21(6), 13-17.
  6. Clark, V. L. P. and J. W. Creswell (2008). Mixing quantitative and quali-tative approaches. Handbook of emergent methods, 363. Cordes, B. (1987). When terrorists do the talking: Reflections on terrorist literature. The Journal of Strategic Studies, 10(4), 150-171.
  7. Crenshaw, M. (2012). The causes of terrorism. Terrorism studies: A read-er, 99-114.
  8. Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE publications. Davies, R. (2010). Critically examine the strengths and weaknesses of ter-rorism research giving examples from the recent literature. In Critical terrorism studies (pp. 230-250).
  9. Routledge. Dewey, J. (1931). Context and thought. University of California publica-tions in philosophy, 12(3). Dewey, J. (1999). The essential Dewey: Pragmatism, education, democ-racy (Vol. 1). Indiana University Press.
  10. Dolnik, A. (2011). Conducting field research on terrorism: A brief pri-mer. Perspectives on Terrorism, 5(2), 3-35.
  11. Elman, C., Gerring, J., and Mahoney, J. (2016). Case study research: Put-ting the quant into the qual. Sociological Methods & Research, 45(3), 375-391.
  12. Fowler, W. W. (1980). An agenda for quantitative research on terrorism. RAND CORP SANTA MONICA CA. Gerring, J. (2011). How good is good enough? A multidimensional, best-possible standard for research design. Political Research Quarterly, 64(3), 625-636.
  13. Glaw, X., Inder, K., Kable, A., and Hazelton, M. (2017)