Identify and explain at least two research methods that you ✓ Solved

```html

Identify and explain at least two research methods that you considered for your research. Which method did you select? How and why did you make this decision? Please include your research question at the beginning of your post. The current qualitative research will focus on the common themes in domestic radicalization to terrorism cases. Further, the research will assess the influence of strain theory on domestic terrorism radicalization. The purpose of the study will be to advance knowledge on the "real" cause of terrorism and address them appropriately. The study will be a program evaluation of government interventions or policies both within the United States and outside to determine their impacts. After the 2001 attacks, the United States settled on military invasions to Muslim countries to deal with militia groups and end terrorism. However, since sending troops to Afghanistan, terrorists have formed novel militia groups and expanded to other parts of the world, including Africa, North America, and Europe. Terrorism has become more localized and domestic (Drevon & Khalifa, 2021).

Because of such developments, the researcher will evaluate American policies and government opinions on Islamic religion to determine if these factors act as strains that prompt the emergence of more terrorist activities domestically. Policy evaluation involves gathering data and analyses to assess policy outcomes or processes. There are various reasons for choosing policy evaluation research over other quantitative and qualitative methodologies. First, countering terrorism is an issue that involves government and its agencies and not individuals. Therefore, it is easier to assess how government policies contribute towards ending or expanding terrorism networks both within and outside the United States (My-Peer Toolkit, n.d).

Some groups may perceive some policies as discriminatory or limiting some religious groups from their fundamental beliefs, which is one of the strains that lead to rebellion. Secondly, policy evaluation promotes public accountability and learning. Terrorism causes loss of lives, permanent injuries, economic turmoil, and instability in various parts of the world. Government response to terrorism should be accurate and well-thought. Thus, by assessing the different types of terrorism-related policies, the government could be more accountable for their interventions when dealing with terrorists (My-Peer Toolkit, n.d).

Thirdly, the program evaluation will bolster understanding of existing policies' necessity, efficiency, and validity. Some governmental policies adopted to eliminate terrorism are not always practical. Other research methods that could be applied in the study are qualitative and quantitative approaches. However, both have not been used in the study for various reasons. First, many qualitative and quantitative studies exist on terrorism and causal factors. Also, it will be challenging to track radicalized individuals to participate in the study due to the complexity and nature of the study topic. Thus, policy evaluation is the best alternative since it is easier to access government records outlining its policies. The three major types of evaluation are process, impact, and process. The study will adopt an outcome-based evaluation approach. Outcome analysis is based on the long-term goals of the project (My-Peer Toolkit, n.d).

The United States government had a long-term goal of ending terrorism by dealing with terrorists and terror groups through military invasion (Drevon & Khalifa, 2016). The reason for choosing outcome-based assessment is to determine whether the government's long-term goals of ending terrorism have been met through its policies. The failure of these policies will show existing strains that lead to sustained terrorism that evolve to become homegrown. The reason for not using impact-based evaluation is its focus on short-term goals. Thus, while short-term objectives can point are effective, they are not always the same as the long-term goals, which are most vital.

Lastly, process-based policy evaluation is not used because the focus is not on implementation procedures but outcomes (My-Peer Toolkit, n.d). These outcomes will be vital in relating strain theory and domestic terrorism. Several sources offer information on ratio analyses of particular industries, most of which are compiled annually. The Risk Management Association publishes its Annual Statement Studies: Financial Ratio Benchmarks. Other pertinent publications include Dun & Bradstreet’s Industry Norms and Key Business Ratios and the Almanac of Business and Industrial Financial Ratios, by Leo Troy.

These publications provide financial ratios for key industries, as well as condensed common-size balance sheets and income statements. The analyses are divided into several categories based on sales revenue and total assets so that readers can select companies of comparable size. These publications are organized by industry, as defined by either the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code or North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code. The SIC system was developed in 1939 and 1940 and has been revised several times since then. It assigns a two-digit code to major industry groups and then further identifies specific industries by a four-digit code. For example, Major Group 23 is “Apparel and Other Finished Products Made from Fabrics and Similar Materials," and C&C is classified under SIC code 2329 for “Men’s and Boys Clothing not Elsewhere Classified." The NAICS codes, a joint project of the United States, Canada, and Mexico, were first published in 1997.

Because this system recognizes changes that have occurred in the global economy since 1940, it provides greater consistency in the classification of firms within industries. As a result, the six-digit NAICS codes are replacing SIC codes in government statistical reporting. C&C Sports is classified under industry 315280, “Other Cut and Sew Apparel Manufacturing." Exhibit 12.9 reports selected percentages and statistics drawn on C&C’s industry from Dun and Bradstreet’s Key Business Ratios and Risk Management Association’s Annual Statement Studies: Financial Ratio Benchmarks.

Paper For Above Instructions

Research Question: What are the themes of domestic radicalization to terrorism, and how does strain theory influence the phenomenon?

Understanding the methodologies available for research is critical in addressing the complexities surrounding domestic radicalization to terrorism. This paper will explore two significant research methods: qualitative research and policy evaluation. The selected method for this research is policy evaluation, specifically focusing on government interventions related to terrorism.

Qualitative research allows for a deep exploration of individuals' thoughts and experiences concerning radicalization. It is especially effective in understanding nuanced human behaviors and motivations (Creswell, 2014). In researching domestic radicalization, qualitative methods can provide rich, detailed narratives that uncover the psychological and social influences leading individuals to join terrorist organizations. Interviews, focus groups, and case studies are commonly employed to gather data and develop a comprehensive understanding of participants' perspectives (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011).

However, for this study, qualitative research poses significant challenges. Given the sensitive nature of the topic, accessing radicalized individuals for in-depth interviews would be logistically complex and ethically fraught. Moreover, the stigma and legal implications surrounding such individuals could hinder honest self-reporting. Thus, the benefits of qualitative research in gathering rich, contextual data are tempered by practical obstacles.

Polynomial evaluation, on the other hand, offers a distinct advantage when it comes to analyzing government policies directed at countering terrorism. This method involves systematically assessing existing policies and interventions, their implementation, and their outcomes. It aims to provide insights into whether these policies effectively address the factors that contribute to terrorism (Patton, 2008). With the United States government being a primary actor in countering terrorism, analyzing policy allows researchers to tap into official records, reports, and evaluations, enabling a more objective analysis of the measures adopted (My-Peer Toolkit, n.d).

The decision to choose policy evaluation over qualitative research stems from the need for empirical data that can inform governmental accountability. Many existing qualitative studies have already explored the general themes surrounding terrorism, making policy evaluation a fresher approach (Drevon & Khalifa, 2021). This method will ensure the research not only identifies the strains leading to terrorism but also evaluates the effectiveness of interventions based on government policies, which is integral to understanding the broader systemic issues at play.

In implementing policy evaluation, it is crucial to define the scope clearly. This study will focus on outcome-based evaluation. The rationale for this choice lies in evaluating long-term effectiveness rather than short-term outputs, which can often obscure real progress (My-Peer Toolkit, n.d). For instance, the U.S. policy aiming to end terrorism through military means post-9/11 shows a commitment but requires thorough evaluation regarding its actual impact on domestic terror activities.

Additionally, the potential strain theory framework will assist in analyzing how certain governmental policies may create perceived grievances among individuals, thus contributing to terrorism. Strain theory posits that individuals facing barriers to achieving culturally valued goals may resort to deviant behavior, including terrorism (Agnew, 1992). By integrating strain theory into the policy evaluation, the research will contribute to understanding how the government's approach may inadvertently exacerbate tensions, leading to radicalization.

In conclusion, while qualitative research provides pathways to explore radicalization intimately, the logistic challenges and existing literature emphasize the need for policy evaluation as the chosen method. Through policy evaluation, this study aims to contribute meaningful insights into the effectiveness of U.S. counter-terrorism policies while employing the lens of strain theory to understand the socio-political context of terrorism.

References

• Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a General Strain Theory of Crime and Delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47-88.
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications.
• Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications.
• Drevon, K., & Khalifa, M. (2021). The Evolution of Domestic Terrorism: A Framework for Analysis. Terrorism Studies Journal, 12(3), 123-145.
• My-Peer Toolkit. (n.d.). Program Evaluation. Retrieved from [URL]
• Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-Focused Evaluation (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Risk Management Association. (n.d.). Annual Statement Studies: Financial Ratio Benchmarks. Retrieved from [URL]
• Dun & Bradstreet. (n.d.). Industry Norms and Key Business Ratios. Retrieved from [URL]
• Troy, L. (n.d.). Almanac of Business and Industrial Financial Ratios. Retrieved from [URL]
• U.S. Department of State. (2016). Country Reports on Terrorism. Retrieved from [URL]

```