The Logic of Domestic Terrorism Revisited: A Response to a Critic

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The article responds to criticisms raised by Matthijs Bogaards. While he makes a number of valid methodological points, it is maintained that the Qvortrup–Lijphart Model of Domestic Terrorism remains paradigmatic. Part of the criticism seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the requirement that causal theories should be as parsimonious as possible. Further, Bogaards does not provide an alternative that both accounts for the occurrences explained by the model as well as the issues that were explained by it (as is required by falsificationist methodological rules). In short, the theory that institutions can contribute to limiting the occurrence of domestic terrorism remains strong, at least in developed capitalist societies. There is no viable alternative; opportunities for democratic engagement are a potent force against political violence.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)(In-Press)
JournalStudies in Conflict and Terrorism
Volume(In-Press)
Early online date7 Jan 2019
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 7 Jan 2019

Fingerprint

Terrorism
critic
terrorism
criticism
political violence
capitalist society
Violence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Safety Research
  • Political Science and International Relations

Cite this

The Logic of Domestic Terrorism Revisited : A Response to a Critic. / Qvortrup, Matt.

In: Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Vol. (In-Press), 07.01.2019, p. (In-Press).

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{2cb0a69d3cc14d5db078f97bd39c0be3,
title = "The Logic of Domestic Terrorism Revisited: A Response to a Critic",
abstract = "The article responds to criticisms raised by Matthijs Bogaards. While he makes a number of valid methodological points, it is maintained that the Qvortrup–Lijphart Model of Domestic Terrorism remains paradigmatic. Part of the criticism seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the requirement that causal theories should be as parsimonious as possible. Further, Bogaards does not provide an alternative that both accounts for the occurrences explained by the model as well as the issues that were explained by it (as is required by falsificationist methodological rules). In short, the theory that institutions can contribute to limiting the occurrence of domestic terrorism remains strong, at least in developed capitalist societies. There is no viable alternative; opportunities for democratic engagement are a potent force against political violence.",
author = "Matt Qvortrup",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "7",
doi = "10.1080/1057610X.2018.1529376",
language = "English",
volume = "(In-Press)",
pages = "(In--Press)",
journal = "Studies in Conflict and Terrorism",
issn = "1057-610X",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Logic of Domestic Terrorism Revisited

T2 - A Response to a Critic

AU - Qvortrup, Matt

PY - 2019/1/7

Y1 - 2019/1/7

N2 - The article responds to criticisms raised by Matthijs Bogaards. While he makes a number of valid methodological points, it is maintained that the Qvortrup–Lijphart Model of Domestic Terrorism remains paradigmatic. Part of the criticism seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the requirement that causal theories should be as parsimonious as possible. Further, Bogaards does not provide an alternative that both accounts for the occurrences explained by the model as well as the issues that were explained by it (as is required by falsificationist methodological rules). In short, the theory that institutions can contribute to limiting the occurrence of domestic terrorism remains strong, at least in developed capitalist societies. There is no viable alternative; opportunities for democratic engagement are a potent force against political violence.

AB - The article responds to criticisms raised by Matthijs Bogaards. While he makes a number of valid methodological points, it is maintained that the Qvortrup–Lijphart Model of Domestic Terrorism remains paradigmatic. Part of the criticism seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the requirement that causal theories should be as parsimonious as possible. Further, Bogaards does not provide an alternative that both accounts for the occurrences explained by the model as well as the issues that were explained by it (as is required by falsificationist methodological rules). In short, the theory that institutions can contribute to limiting the occurrence of domestic terrorism remains strong, at least in developed capitalist societies. There is no viable alternative; opportunities for democratic engagement are a potent force against political violence.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059649649&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/1057610X.2018.1529376

DO - 10.1080/1057610X.2018.1529376

M3 - Article

VL - (In-Press)

SP - (In-Press)

JO - Studies in Conflict and Terrorism

JF - Studies in Conflict and Terrorism

SN - 1057-610X

ER -