terrorism review protocol

8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol

1/32

CAMBPELL SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL

COVER SHEET

TITLE:

Strategies Related to the Prevention, Detection, Management and Response to Terrorism: ACampbell Systematic Review.

AUTHORS:

Dr. Cynthia Lum, Assistant Professor

Northeastern University

College of Criminal Justice415 Churchill Hall

Boston, MA 02115(617) 373-4076

[email protected]

Dr. Leslie W. Kennedy, Dean

Rutgers University

School of Criminal Justice


2/32

BACKGROUND FOR THE REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

Social scientists have often responded to events, crises and public concerns through

research. In crime and justice, for example, the increase in crime rates and imprisonment in the

1970s and 80s (see Blumstein and Wallman, 2000) and the debate over the effectiveness of

rehabilitation (Lipton, Martinson and Wilks, 1975; MacKenzie, 1997) led to a large amount of

research on imprisonment, sentencing schemes and alternative corrections (Blumstein, 1988).

Similarly, heightened awareness of domestic violence and outrage towards police responses to

these incidents resulted in increased attention to the issue by criminologists and later to policy

responses reflecting research (Sherman, 1992). This same policy focus and attempts to influence

current policies can be seen in research on high-profile concerns about gangs and drugs (Lane


3/32

these endeavors. This movement has served important functions in improving both the quality of

research as well as properly informed practice in areas such as police patrol, corrections-based

schemes, juvenile diversion, treatment of sex offenders, and sentencing practices. Evidence-

based perspectives can also provide a moderating effect on policy-responses to crises that have

become more influenced by moral panics (Cohen, 1972) than by reason or facts. For example,

the use of boot camps to control the juvenile superpredator has been widely discounted by

much research evaluating the effective ness of these programs (see Gover, MacKenzie and Styve,

2000) counter-balancing the popular movement towards utilizing these approaches in controlling

juvenile crime.

The current public concern over terrorism also presents similar controversies and

research challenges. While counter-terrorism and terrorism prevention programs have

blossomed considerably since September 11th

, there has been little evaluation of either the


4/32

as terrorism (including ethnic conflict) then we might also have to include strategies such as

war, government suppression, laws that manipulate boundaries or peace treaties as possible

strategies to evaluate. Even more problematic may be political goals and biases that underlie

terrorism research. For example, one might argue that anti-terrorism effectiveness is measured

when there is political suppression of opposition parties, which may not be valued in democratic

societies. Other strategies may seem effective but may be in gross violation of human rights

norms, such as the inhumane treatment of prisoners or other corrective policies that may not be

acceptable in many societies.

Additionally, like much of crime, political violence involves multiple points at which

interventions may be effective and where outcomes might be measured. For example, ant i-

terrorism strategies may include prevention and alleviation of early risk factors, situational

prevention of actual events, or post-event responses. Furthermore, because of the rare nature of


5/32

know what works, doesnt work or is promising (see Sherman et al., 1997) in terms of the

most optimal use of resources. This review will function as a mechanism to systematically

collect and comprehend the scattered research on terrorism that takes place across multiple

disciplines and countries. Secondly, a systematic review may also expose what little we really

know about the effects and effectiveness of anti-terrorism strategies and areas of possible future

research. This may not only shape research agendas but may also shape more thoughtful policy

development as well. Currently, the state of terrorism research, although vast in many respects,

does little to critically evaluate the effectiveness and effects of programs designed to combat

terrorism and we have already seen harmful effects of policies which we know little about.

A PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF TERRORISM LITERATURE

Before approaching a review of anti-terrorism strategies, a preliminary and general


6/32

article located, the author, year, title, citation, abstract and keywords were recorded.

Because of the volume of the initial literature search, publications were first divided

according to the review status of their sources and only abstracts from peer-reviewed sources

were individually read. Again, it should be emphasized that the filters used for this preliminary

review will be re-evaluated when searching only for research on the evaluation of anti-terrorism

strategies. The focus on peer-reviewed sources was not only practically necessary due to the

volume of the literature, but served as a preliminary filter for understanding the quality and

substance of academic research on terrorism and political violence. Many of the articles from

non peer-reviewed sources were either news reports, opinion-editorials, advertisements,

announcements or bulletins that would not normally be considered research. To separate

articles from peer-reviewed sources, a list of peer-reviewed journals was generated using peer-

review lists compiled by EBSCO,4

OCLC,5

the American Medical Association,6

and the


7/32

bombing in 1995 nor any other significant terrorist event, including the World Trade Center

bombing in 1993, has ever generated this much research interest.

[FIGURE 1 HERE]

This exponential growth of research reflects not only the response to September 11th by

researchers, but also increases in federal funding for research and development related to

terrorism over the fiscal years following the attacks (Guinnessy and Dawson, 2002; Issues in

Science and Technology, 2002; Macilwain, 2002; Silke, 2004, generally). Although time will

tell whether this substantial increase is a fad, this trend is indeed currently significant, pointing

to the relevance of terrorism research generally. Furthermore, this increase in research has also

been matched by the massive build-up of anti-terrorism efforts and bureaucracy, much of which

we have little or no understanding as to their effectiveness or consequences. Thus, not only is

interest and concern of terrorism real, but substantive and institutionalized changes have made


8/32

for each study, the volume of studies did not allow us to individually read every article for this

preliminary review. However, we anticipate that this limitation is a minor source of error that

does not largely impact our general findings (and for the Campbell review articles will be

scrutinized in-full). Three basic categorizations were preliminarily developed to facilitate further

identification of articles that may be useful to a Campbell Review: thought pieces, case

studies, and empirically-based research. Briefly, thought pieces were classified as

publications that were philosophical, theoretical or opinion-based without any indication that a

case study or empirical analysis of a topic was undertaken. For example, articles discussing

problems with defining terrorism, legal issues surrounding 9-11, historical accounts of a

particular conflict, descriptions of a particular emergency response or opinions about the

governments policy towards counter-terrorism would be categorized as thought pieces. Case

studies became a somewhat confusing category (as some case studies could be thought pieces


9/32

of terrorism, attitudes towards the U.S. after September 11th, and multivariate analysis on factors

contributing to the development of terrorist groups.

Figure 2 shows the distribution of the type of methodology for all articles in peer -

reviewed publications where an abstract was available. Although thought pieces certainly have

their own value in furthering the understanding of any topic, the research on terrorism has been

bereft of empirical research, a problem which has been endemic in terrorism research since

Schmid and Jongmans review in 1988. This problem has not improved after September 11th

;

when only examining the research conducted in 2001 and 2002, the proportion of empirical or

case studies was similar.

[FIGURE 2 HERE]

The dearth of empirical analysis in peer-reviewed sources suggests a number of possible

concerns. First, practical problems in either qualitatively or quantitatively studying terrorism are


10/32

in this research (and specifically how much of the general research reflected evaluation studies).

To understand the distribution of subjects researched regarding terrorism, a coding schema was

developed by initially taking a random sample of 200 articles from the peer-reviewed journals

which were then individually examined to develop a preliminary list of topics. This was done so

as not to force subjects into pre-defined categories. Then, each of the citations from peer-

reviewed sources that had abstracts were individually read and matched to this preliminary list,

which was actively modified during this process. Thirty-five general categories initially

emerged which were collapsed into seventeen categories shown in Table 1. Table 1 also reports

the distribution of these categorizations for just those articles which were deemed empirical

studies.

[TABLE 1 HERE]

A number of interesting findings emerged. Generally, issues related to weapons of mass


11/32

that are also under-researched. This may include, for example, violations of civil rights,

increases in law enforcement powers with questionable constitutionality, or post-traumatic

psychological effects on victims. Little is known generally about the effectiveness of law

enforcement and other non-political responses to terrorist events. Although legal issues have

been more researched, they still represent only a small percentage of terrorism-related research.

This is also true for issues related to coping with terrorism events and the general victimology of

terrorism. Additionally, when thinking about future threats, such correlations between terrorism

and religion, socio-economic factors and political responses have yet to be made.

When examining those articles preliminarily deemed to be empirical, the findings are

both encouraging and discouraging. While a quarter of the empirical work has been conducted

on victimology, a subject relevant to our search for evaluation studies, and while it is anticipated

that within the literature on weapons of mass destruction there may be empirical tests, we also


12/32

provided important pressures to study a wide variety of terrorism-related issues. Government

agencies, law enforcement and other first responders in major cities have changed their

organizations to accommodate these concerns, for example, focusing on the possibility of

responding to biological agents or to mass casualties. Both the social environment after

September 11th as well as the Patriot Act8 have affected and changed police perceptions of

equity, due process, racial profiling and definitions of suspiciousness. Our court systems are

now faced with individuals charged with a number of newly passed or recently revived anti-

terrorism laws. And, the mass mobilization of federal agencies pushes us to ask about their

effectiveness, appropriateness and their relationship to our multi-cultural society. Many of these

concerns have been matched by increased funding from granting agencies for terrorism research

and anti-terrorism policy options (Guinnesy and Dawson, 2002; Macilwain, 2002) as well as

calls to service by policy makers (Arlacchi, 2001; Parachini, 1999).


13/32

informed, evidence-based terrorism policies, a mandate which has become an important part of

research agendas (Sherman et al., 2002; Weisburd, Petrosino and Lum, 2003).

This review suggests that social scientists can contribute through the evaluation of the

effectiveness and effects of anti-terrorism policy towards more meaningful evidence-based

approaches. In informing the public discourse about terrorism, particularly in the context of the

major shift in discussions about security that impact on all parts of society, there needs to be a

push for more quality research. Policy-makers need thoughtful, evidence-based, information

utilizing available databases, as well as the continued search for and acquisition of further

sources of data. The next sections outline the protocol for a Campbell systematic review of anti-

terrorism strategies.

METHODOLOGY


14/32

institution (e.g., the police, courts or corrections) are still crime-relevant (such as those strategies

implemented in schools or by businesses or communities). Thus, we feel that a broad approach

is warranted in creating the initial base of literature to examine. We propose to include

evaluations of any strategy that involves the prevention, detection, management or response to

terrorism events and incidents. While this may seem to be a difficult and disadvantaging task,

our preliminary analysis shows that only 3% of our peer reviewed literature is empirically

based, suggesting that the there may only be a couple of hundred empirically-based studies to

begin with. While we will have to extend our search to 2003 and 2004 as well as look at all

publication mediums (books, non-peer review materials, unpublished papers, government

reports), we anticipate that the number of evaluations will be manageable despite our broad

inclusion criteria.

However, as already discussed, one main obstacle when seeking out evaluations of


15/32

Following from these broad criteria, our search will encompass the aforementioned four

categories of anti-terrorism strategies (although if another relevant category arises, we will be

open to creating new categories): preventative, detection-oriented, managerial and response-

oriented. We take this approach as we recognize that there are a number of points before, during

and after a terrorist event in which strategies may be implemented (see Schmid, 1983; Walter,

1969). Prevention strategies are strategies designed to deter future events and might include

airport security measures or target hardening evaluations. Studies on the preventative effects of

legal measures (such as the Patriot Act) would also be included, for example. Research on

detection strategies may include interventions related to, for example, airport security, but also

might include evaluations of measures used to look into containers, border-related strategies,

immigration policy or other tactics used to detect people, places, things or situations involved in

terror-related activity. Managing strategies point to tactics after the fact and can include


16/32

inclusion criteria above. Thus, the identification of any study based on empirical data will

initially be considered. However, because this review will also have policy implications, we

intend to specify our sample, within this group of empirical studies, to those studies that would

satisfy moderate methodological requirements as described below. While we will use the

Maryland Report Scientific Methods Score (see Sherman et al., 1997) of 3 as a general

guideline, each study will be evaluated on its own. However, when reporting our results, we

will remain extremely sensitive to the way we present our findings, emphasizing continuously

that lower methodological rigor may lead to incorrect conclusions. Studies that will be excluded

from this review will be thought pieces which have no empirical analysis of the effects or

effectiveness of anti-terrorism strategies or that do not have any outcome measured for programs

discussed.


17/32

sources. Additionally, Alex Piquero, of the University of Florida, Gainesville and Gary LaFree,

of the University of Maryland, College Park, have also conducted a review of hijacking which

we will seek to add to our study with their permission. Other terrorism literature will also be

searched, including evaluations from books and non-article mediums , government publications

and unpublished material. We will also seek the assistance of a number of international scholars,

who may be of assistance in locating research not present in these databases or that may not

initially be in the English language. Finally, we will conduct an internet search to capture any

other evaluations that may have been missed and that satisfy our me thodological criteria.

In accordance with our broad definitions as mentioned above, we will conduct a

widespread search of multiple terms related to terrorism and their derivatives (which may be

added to or adjusted as required). Some examples of these terms include : terrorism, political

violence, political crime, emergency response, riots, anti-Semitic, white supremacist,


18/32

Sherman et al., 1997; Sherman et al., 2002) in terms of the studys rating on the Sc ientific

Methods Scale (SMS). Moderately rigorous studies will be those who could be rated a 3 on

the SMS scale, although we will evaluate each study on its own merits. Furthermore, we found

Farringtons (2003) criteria to also be helpful in determining the scientific validity of studies and

will use both guidance form the Sherman et al.s SMS and Farringtons discussion of validity.

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF INDEPENDENT FINDINGS

We anticipate that an evaluation research study may include multiple findings on a

variety of different types of strategies or on different study samples. Each research work will be

reviewed in terms of whether outcomes arise from different samples, or if different outcomes

arise from the same study samples. For those arising from independent samples but reported in

one article or book, we will treat as separate findings. For multiple findings from the same


19/32

conclusions made by authors will also be recorded. Because the number of studies finally used

in the systematic review is anticipated to be small, multiple authors of this review will separately

analyze each study and come to a consensus about the coding of the data.

STATISTICAL PROCEDURES AND CONVENTIONS

The results of each study will be summarized and presented in table format listing

relevant variables such as findings, effect sizes, statistical significance, type of intervention and

type of methodology used. If possible, meta-analytic approaches to combining data from studies

will be used (see Lipsey and Wilson, 2001). When possible, the authors will calculate effect

sizes if enough data is present in the study results to do so. We plan to use commonly accepted

standardized measures of effect sizes (see Lipsey and Wilson, 2001; Rosenthal, 1991) to

calculate and compare effect sizes. Furthermore, a general assessment will be made as to


20/32

March 2005 April 2005: Preliminary analysis of data and possible preparation for

presentation at professional conferences.

April 2005 December 2005: Final completion of data analysis, write up and presentation for

review.

PLANS FOR UPDATING THE REVIEW

It is anticipated the in January of 2007, the primary investigator will initiate the process

for updating this review.

ACKNOWLDEGMENTS

We would like to acknowledge the invaluable assistance of Louise Stanton and Michele

Grillo who assisted in the general review described in the Background section of this protocol.


21/32

University of Chicago Press.

Blumstein, A. and Wallman, J. (eds.). (2000). The crime drop in America. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, Stan. (1972). Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers .

Oxford: Blackwell.

Farrall, S., Bannister, J., Ditton, J., and Gilchrist, E. (1997). Open and closed question. Social

research update 17. University of Surrey. [On-line]. Available:

http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU17.html.

Farrington, David. (2003). Methodological Quality Standards for Evaluation Research. The

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 587(1) , 49-68.

Gover, A., D. MacKenzie, G. Styve. (2000). Boot Camps and Traditional Correctional Facilitiesfor Juveniles: A Comparison of the Participants, Daily Activities, and Environments.

Journal of Criminal Justice 28(1): 53-68.

Guinnessy, J., and Dawson. P. (2002). Terrorism drives Bush R&D money to defense and NIJ;

The science funding flat in fiscal 2003. Physics Today, 55, 30.

Halkides, M. (1995). How not to study terrorism. Peace Review, 7, 253-260.


22/32

Macilwain, C. (2002). Bush goes to war as budget boosts R&D. Nature, 415, 564.

MacKenzie, D. (1997). Criminal justice and crime prevention. In Sherman, Lawrence, DeniseGottfredson, Doris MacKenzie, John Eck, Peter Reuter and Shawn Bushway (eds.)

Preventing crime: What works, what doesnt, whats promising. Washington, DC:

National Institute of Justice.

MacKenzie, D. (2000). Evidence-Based Corrections: Identifying What Works. Crime and

Delinquency 46:457-71.

Miller, R. (1988). The literature of terrorism. Terrorism, 11, 63-87.

Parachini, J. (1999). Combating terrorism: Assessing the threat. Testimony to the HouseSubcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations

(October 20, 1999). [On-line]. Available:http://lxmi.mi.infn.it/~landnet/Biosec/parachini.pdf.

Reuter, P. (2001). Why does research have so little impact on drug policy? Addiction, 96, 373-376.

Romano, T. (1984). Terrorism: An analysis of the literature. Dissertation. Fordham

University, Department of Sociology, Criminology and Penology.


23/32

Silke, Andrew (ed.). (2004). Research on Terrorism: Trends, Achievements and Failures. New

York: Taylor and Francis.

Walter, E.V. (1969). Terror and Resistance: A Study of Political Violence with Case Studies of

Some Primitive African Communities. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Weisburd, David, Cynthia M. Lum, and Anthony Petrosino. (2001). Does Research Design

Affect Study Outcomes in Criminal Justice? Annals of the American Academy ofPolitical and Social Science 578:50-70.

Weisburd, David, Anthony Petrosino and Cynthia Lum (eds.). (2003). Assessing systematic

evidence in crime and justice: Methodological concerns and empirical outcomes(Preface). The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 6-

14.


24/32

TABLES AND FIGURES

Figure 1. Yearly Distribution of Terrorism Publications (as a percentage of total N)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

All articles (N=14,006) Peer-reviewed, non criminal justice (N=5,797)


25/32

Table 1. Distribution of Subject Matter in Terrorism Research (Percentages)

Peer-reviewed

sources

Empirical

only

Subject Matter (N=4,458a) (N=156

a)

Weapons of mass destruction (biological, chemical, nuclear) 18.1% 10.3%

Article on a specific issue such as the IRA, Al Qaeda or incidentb 12.2% 5.1%Political responses to terrorism (war, politics, international

relations) 9.5% 1.9%

Causes, motivations, psychology, trends of terrorism 8.7% 18.1%

Impacts of terrorism (political, social, economic) 7.7% 5.2%

Non-political responses to terrorism(medical, social, economic) 5.5% 3.9%

Victimology, coping mechanisms, psychological effects ofterrorism 5.4% 25.8%

Other (nationalism, intelligence issues, democracy andvulnerability) 5.4% 3.9%

Legal issues surrounding terrorism 5.2% 0.6%

The media and public attitudes towards terrorism 4.6% 18.7%

How to define terrorism 4.2% 1.3%


26/32

25

APPENDIX A: Organizations Conducting Terrorism Research

ORGANIZATION URL

Adolescents in Political Violence Project (Universi ty of Tennessee) http://cfs.utk.edu/f_s/barber.html

ANSER Institute for Homeland Security http://www.homelandsecurity.org

Aon Corporat ion http://www.aon.com/

Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs (Harvard University) http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/

Bioterrorism Preparedness Office (Center for Disease Control) http://www.cdc.gov/

Board of Neuroscience and Behavioral Health (National Academy of Science) http://www.iom.edu

Homeland Security Project (Brookings Inst.)

http://www.brookings.edu/fp/research/projects/homeland/homeland.htm

Canadian Security Intelligence Service (Canadian Government) http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/eng/menu/welcome_e.html

Center for Defense and International Security Studies http://www.cdiss.org/terror.htm

Center for Biosecurity and Public Health Preparedness (University of Texas Houston) http://www.sph.uth.tmc.edu/cbphp

Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies (Johns Hopkins University ) http://www.hopkins -biodefense.org

Center for Contemporary Conflict (US Navy) http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/

Center for Defense Information - Terrorism Project http://www.cdi.org

Center for Democracy and Technology http://www.cdt.org/

Center for International Security and Cooperation (Stanford University) http://cisac.stanford.edu

Center for Non-Proliferation Studies (Monterey Institute of International Studies) http://cns.miis.edu/

Center for Peace and Security (Georgetown University) http://cpass.georgetown.edu/

Center for Public Health and Disasters (UCLA) http://www.cphd.ucla.edu

Center for Technology and National Security Policy (US Department of Defense) http://www.ndu.edu/ctnsp/index.html

Center for Terrorism Preparednes s (University of Findlay) http://www.nceem.org/terrorism/default.asp

Center for the Prevention of Genocide (Improve the World International) http://www.genocideprevention.org/index.htm

Center for the Study of Bioterrorism and Emerging Infections (St. Louis University) http://bioterrorism.slu.edu/

Center for the Study of Public Security (Rutgers University) http://www.andromeda.rutgers.edu/~rcst/home.html


27/32

26

Center for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence (University of St. Andrews) http://www.st-andrews.ac .uk/academic/ intrel/research /cstpv/

Center on Terrorism and Irregular Warfare (US Navy) http://www.nps.navy.mil/ctiw/

Center on Terrorism and Public Health (Florida State College of Medicine) http://www.med.fsu.edu/healthaffairs/ctph/default.asp

Center on Terrorism and Public Safety (John Jay College of Criminal Justice) http://www.centeronterrorism.org

Centers for Public Health Preparedness (Center for Disease Control) http://www.phppo.cdc.gov/owpp/CPHPLocations.asp

CERT Coordinat ion Center (Carnegie Mellon University ) http://www.cert.org/Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute http://www.cbaci. org/

Chemical and Biological Arms Control Program (Federation of American Scientists) http://www.fas.org/bwc/index.htm

Chemical and Biological Defense Information Analysis Center (Battelle Memorial

Institute) http://www.cbiac.apgea.army.mil/

Columbia University World Trade Center

Archive Project

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/news/libraries/2001-10-

30.wtc_archives.html

Command and Control Research Program (Department of Defense) http://www .dodccrp.org/

Conflict Archive on the Internet (University of Ulster) http://cain.ulst er.ac.uk/

Congressional Research Service (Library of Congress) http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/whatscrs.html#about

Council on Foreign Relations http://www.cfr.org/

Counterterrorism Office (Department of State)http://www.state.gov/s/ct/

Critical Incident Analysis Group (University of Virginia) http://www.healthsystem.v irginia.edu/ciag

Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma (University of Washington) http://www.dartcenter.org/

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Department of Defense) http://www.darpa.mil/

Defense Information Systems Agency (Department of Defense) http://www.disa.mil/

Defense Intelligence Agency (Department of Defense) http://www.dia.mil/

Emergency Response and Research Institute http://www.emergency.com

Facts on File, Inc (Ferguson Publishing Co.) http ://www.factsonfile.com/Federal Research Division-Te rrorism and Crime Studies (Library of Congress) http://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/frd/

Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering http://www1.oecd.org/fatf/index.htm

Foreign Policy Research Institute

http://www.fpri.org/

Foundation for the Defense of Democracies http://www.defenddemocracy.org/


28/32

27

National Security Archive - George Washington Universityhttp://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

Gov ern ment Accounting Office- S pecial C ollections- Ter ro ris m http://www.gao.gov/terrorism.html

Henry L. Stimson Center http://www.stimson.org

Human Rights Watch http://www.hrw.org/

Institute for Security Technology Studies (Dartmouth College) http://www.ists.dartmouth.edu/

International Center for Terrorism Studies (Potomac Institute for Policy Studies) http://www.potomacinstitute.org/academic/icts.cfm

International Critical Incident Stress Foundation http://www.icisf.org/

International Policy Institu te for Counter-Terrorism http://www.ict.org.il/

International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies www.istss.org

Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/about.html

Library of Congress September 11 Archive http://september11.archive.org/

The Mackenzie Institute http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/

Matthew B. Ridgway Center for International Security Studies (University of

Pittsburgh) http://www.gspia.pitt.edu/ridgway/

Mitretek Systems http://www.mitretek.org/home.nsf

Narcoterror.org http://www.narcoterror.org/

National Association of Insurance Commissioners http://www.naic.org/

National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (formerly National Imagery and Mapping

Agency, Department of Defense) http://www.nima.mil/

National Security Agency http://www.nsa.gov/

National Technical Information Service (Department of Commerce) http://www.ntis.gov

Nuclear Control Institute http://www.nci.org/

US Customs & Border Protection (DHS) http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/

Office of Domestic FinanceTerrorism Risk Insurance Program (Department ofTreasury)

http://www.treasury.gov/offices/domestic-finance/financial-institution /terrorism-insurance/

Office of Foreign Asset Control (Department of Treasury) http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/Oklahoma City National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism http://www.mipt.org/

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Department of Energy) http://www.pnl.gov/

PILOTS catalog Dartmouth College Library http://www.dartmouth.edu

Pinkerton Global Intelligence Services http:/ /pgis.pinkertons.com/


29/32

28

Political Risk and Trade Credit Group (MMC Enterprise Risk Group) http://www.mmcer.com/

Public Health Practice Program (Center for Disease Control) http://www.phppo.cdc.gov

RAND http://www.rand.org/

SAPRA India http://www.subcontinent.com/sapra.html

South Asia Terrorism Portal (Institu te for Conflict Management) http://www.satp.org/

SSAF International Ltd. http://www.ssafprotection.com/Technical Support Working Group (Department of State) http://tswg.gov

Technology and Public Policy Program (Center for Strategic and International Studies) http://www.csis.org/tech/index.htm

Global Programme Against Terrorism (United Nations) http://www.odccp.org/odccp/terrori sm.html

Terrorism Research Center http://www.homelandsecurity.com/

The Cato Institute http://www.cato.org/

The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/

The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/

Transnational Threats Initiative (Center for Strategic and International Studie s) http://www.csis.org /tnt/

United States Institu te of Peace http://www.usip .org/US Department of Agriculture Food Safety & Inspection Service; Agricultural

Research Service http://www.fsis.usda.gov/; http://www.ars.usda.gov/

US Food and Drug AdministrationCenter for Biologics Evaluation & Research; andCenter for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition

http://www.fda.gov/cber/index.html;http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/list.html

US Secret Service http://www.secretservice.gov/index.sh tml

US Air Force Counter Proliferation Center

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-cps.htm

http://c21.maxwell.af.mil/

Versar Inc. http://www.versar.com/

Wade Financial Group http://www.terrorism-insurance -risk-management.com/

William R. Nelson Institute for Public Affairs (James Madison Univers ity) http://www.jmu.edu/orgs/wrni/


30/32

29

APPENDIX B: Data Sources Available

ORGANIZATION DATA DESCRIPTION

Avalon Project, Yale Law School

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/terrorism/terror.htm

documents pre-18th

century

CDISS Terrorism Program - Center for Defense and International Security Studies Terrorist incidents 1945 to 1998

Center for the Prevention of Genocide Country reports online

Center for Non-Proliferation Studies Weapons of mass destruction database

Center for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence- University of St.Andrews Terrorism incident database

Center on Terrorism and Irregular WarfareGovernment databases. Suicide bombers.

Chemical and Biological Defense Information Analysis Center CBIAC Bibliographic Database

Columbia University World Trade Center Archive Project Archive data on September 11th

Conflict Archive on the Internet Databases on Northern Ireland conflict

Counterterrorism Office- US Department of State Patterns and trends of terrorism, chronology online

Department of Psychology-Political Violence Program- Tel Aviv University Ariel Merari database on terrorism incidents

Emergency Response and Research Institute

Privately-held databases on terrorist personnel, terrorism methods,

terrorist incidents, and the implications thereof

Federal Research Division-Terrorism Studies Terrorism databases

Federation of American Scientists (FAS), Intelligence Resource Program ,

Liberation Movements, Terrorist Organizations, Substance Cartels, and other

Para-State Organizations.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/index.html

This directory of para-states is not a list of terrorist organizations,

and is not constructed to supplement or complement the list of

terrorist organizations of the US Department of State. The guide

intentionally casts a wide net, and includes both the nasty and nice.

George Washington University September 11 Source Books


31/32

30

Henry L. Stimson Center Unconventional weapons, chemical and biological terrorism

International Center for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR) http://www.ntu.edu.sg/idss/research_03a.htm

The ICPVTR database focuses on the Asia Pacific region, especially

Southeast Asia. No other details are available and it is not yetavailable to the public.

International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) Israel Houses six databases on terrorists groups, incidents, activity

Library of Congress Archive of digital materials up after 9/11

University of Michigan Documents CenterAmericas War Against TerrorismWorld Trade Center/Pentagon Terrorism and

the Aftermath http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/usterror.html

National Association of Insurance CommissionersInsurance related databases such as claims from attacks and othercriminal liabilities

The New York Times News archives

Oklahoma City National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of TerrorismRAND Terrorism Chronology Database, RAND-MIPT TerrorismIncident Database, and MIPT Indictment Database

PILOTS catalog Publi shed International Literature On Traumatic Stress

Pinkerton Global Intelligence Services

Incident Database (currently housed and researched at the University

of Maryland, Department of Criminology under Professor Gary

LaFree)

RAND RAND Terrorism Incident Database

SSAF International Ltd Multiple databases

Technical Support Working Group (US Department of State)

Terrorism Prevention Branch- Center for International Crime Prevention (CICP) of

the UN 10 databases described in Forum on Crime and Society

Center for Non-Proliferation Studies Terrorist Group Profiles

Terrorism Research CenterTerrorist group profiles, significant events, terrorist attacks, counter-

terrorism group profiles, and country profiles.

Wade Financial Group Insurance related informat ion


32/32

31

The Washington Post News archives

ENDNOTES

1 We also conducted a search from approximately twenty different university libraries for books related to terrorism. However, because of the inconsistent

availability of an abstract for each citation, an analysis of the books was not undertaken at this time. However, the systematic review will include evaluationsfrom all known mediums and sources.2

The databases used were Academic Search Premier, ArticleFirst (OCLC), Contemporary Womens Issues, Criminal Justice Abstracts, EbscoHost, EconLit,Educational Abstracts, Electronic Collections Online, ERIC(OCLC), GEOBASE, Humanities Abstracts, Ingenta, ISI Web of Science, MEDLINE, National

Criminal Justice Reference Service, PAIS International Articles Only, PUBMEDLINE, Social Science Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts. The time periods

covered by each of these databases can be obtained at http://www.lib.neu.edu/gateway/databasestrifold.pdf .3

Although an attempt was made to eliminate duplicates using database manipulation software, it is possible that not all duplicates were initially eliminated.

Because this review later focused on peer-reviewed literature only, each of these were individually checked by hand for the existence of duplicates which were

then excluded. The 14,006 articles represent the final universe of articles after this check was made on the peer-reviewed articles only.4

See http://www.epnet.com/titlelists.asp .5

See http://www.pais.org/journalslist/peer-reviewed.stm.6

We used, at the time, http://www.ama-assn.org/med_link/peer.htm, which is now an inactive link.7

See http://www.eurekalert.org/links.php?jrnl=A .8

H.R. 3162, 107th

Congress, 1st

Session, October 24, 2001.9

This search was conducted by Louise Stanton at Rutgers University.