Reputation of Terror Groups Dataset
| Date | 01 March 2016 |
| Author | Efe Tokdemir,Seden Akcinaroglu |
| Published date | 01 March 2016 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022343315626506 |
| Subject Matter | Special Data Features |
Reputation of Terror Groups Dataset:
Measuring popularity of terror groups
Efe Tokdemir & Seden Akcinaroglu
Department of Political Science, Binghamton University
Abstract
Violence against civilians is not the only tool among the arsenal of terrorists; it is only one of many. Up until now,
there did not exist any quantitative data on the different strategies adopted by terror groups that measured the group’s
popularity or its public support. The Reputation of Terror Groups dataset (RTG) addresses this void. To understand
which terror groups build different types of reputation, to analyze the consequences of reputation building and how
reputation changes with and influences conflict dynamics, we need to be able to measure the loaded concept of
reputation. RTG is the first systematic measure for the reputation of terror groups across countries or time. The
dataset includes 443 terror groups operating across 31 years, which makes a total of 2,641 observations. The large
sample size of the RTG dataset allows comparisons of popularity among groups. Additionally, the dataset adopts a
multivariable approach by examining multiple aspects of both positive and negative reputation building. Another
novelty of the dataset is its measure of reputation with regard to each target, mainly its constituency and target
audience. The RTG data can help us come up with new and novel ways of understanding terror groups, and
contribute to bridging the gap between micro- and mezzo-level studies in the literature by showing how terror
groups adopt different strategies in their constituency and target audience to pursue their goals. In this article, we give
an overview assessment of the RTG dataset, display some interesting trends in the data, and explain the data
collection procedure, its challenges, and its limitations.
Keywords
constituency, data collection, domestic terrorism, reputation
Introduction
The word ‘terrorism’ often includes a negative connota-
tion and recent events, such as the Islamic terrorists who
killed 12 people, most of whom were journalists, at the
Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo or children abducted by
Boko Haram in Nigeria, in the last few years are a tes-
timony to the extent of terror groups’ brutality against
civilians. Indeed, many of the definitions of terrorism,
including that of the US State Department and the FBI,
include violence against civilians. Yet, not all terror
groups use violence against civilians consistently or
extensively. Excessive violence may generate costs for
terror groups; for example, the 1997 Luxor killings by
Al Gama’a al-Islamiya targeting a brutal attack on tour-
ists in Egypt, including a five-year-old British child, led
to a precipitous drop in the group’s popularity and even-
tually led to its demise (Weinberg, 2012).
Violence against civilians is not the only tool in the
arsenal of terrorists; it is only one of many. Many scho-
lars argue that terrorism is merely a tactic (Merari,1993;
Hoffman, 2006; Kilcullen, 2010). Indeed, terrorism is
often used along with other violent forms of warfare that
necessitate and heavily rely on public support (Findley &
Young, 2012). For example, while Hezbollah has killed
civilians, it has also invested heavily in schools, health
facilities, and orphanages to generate support among its
Shia constituency. Groups categorized as terrorists
employ different strategies, some of which are negative
and some positive to obtain and sustain recruitment,
material resources, and the publicity they desire. Up
untilnow,noquantitativedatahaveexistedonthe
Corresponding author:
itokdem1@binghamton.edu
Journal of Peace Research
2016, Vol. 53(2) 268–277
ªThe Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022343315626506
jpr.sagepub.com
To continue reading
Request your trial