Discuss and critically assess Shaw’s Pathway Model.

Directions
Please answer questions below in 1 page answer question below. On second page reply to each student in 1 paragraph for each person all 3 students must have a reply. You can agree or disagree for each reply. below.

Question

This week we will discuss and critically assess Shaw’s Pathway Model. To do this, consider the following questions:

What are the paper’s faults and merits?
Is it empirically valid?
Is the research design adequate?
Are there any alternative explanations?

Student Replies

Jasmine Lee-Hall
While it was an interesting read, I don’t necessarily view Shaw’s writings as empirically valid and there are definite faults. Most of the information that he used to come “create” this pathway or come to this realization is based on the work of others and not an analysis or study that he conducted himself. Shaw provides very little scientific data and research to support his theory about how homegrown terrorists come to exist. In his paper he even mentioned that there was a notable “relative lack of psychopathology in the clinical examination of terrorists” (Shaw, 1986).
There was some merit to this piece. According to his “pathway model, there are four dynamics that make terrorists are early socialization process, narcissistic injuries, escalatory events, and personal connections to terrorist group members. The reading explains that terrorist come from a “selected, at risk population” (Shaw, 1986). The previous lesson in this course lends to the idea that this is true. Research to support previous writing assignments and discussions continuously mentioned terrorists coming from poor and troubled surroundings. There have been instances that suicide bombers were kidnapped and forced to commit to terrorist organizations to avoid harm to their family. His article went on to highlight examples of each of the dynamics related to becoming a terrorist to support his views.
With that being said, I don’t think that there is a single motivation that helps understand why people choose to become terrorists. Shaw’s method may help explain, in general, how people end up in lifestyle, but it is not all inclusive.

Reference
Shaw, E. D. (1986). Political terrorists: Dangers of diagnosis and an alternative to the psychopathology model. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 8(3), 359–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2527(86)90066-x

Margaret Kean
Shaw does an adequate job of critiquing the pathology model of terrorism. As Shaw explains that research conducted to arrive at this model was lacking and could include bias. Having only interviewed a small fraction of terrorists who all fall in the same category as those being caught does not provide a great sampling of true research. In comparison, Shaw’s research into the personal development model wasn’t much more. Shaw cites historical facts of known terrorists and hypothesizes about the impacts those events may have had on those individuals. Any hypothesis into what encourages or makes a terrorist will, in my opinion, stay just that. The nature of terrorists makes it impossible to study them on an individual level and profiling can only take you so far.
Alternatively, there could be other explanations or models of terrorism and why terrorists become terrorists. Additional research could be done into why individuals from similar means and environments did not become terrorists as Shaw notes that having childhood trauma such as growing up in a refugee camp could encourage an individual into being a terrorist. As previously mentioned terrorists don’t routinely give interviews on their individual lives but it could answer questions or help policy to understand how others evaded the pull of becoming a terrorist.

Eric D. Shaw. Political terrorists: Dangers of diagnosis and an alternative to the psychopathology model. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, Volume 8, Issue 3. 1986. Pages 359-368. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2527(86)90066-X (Links to an external site.).

Kelly Hollenbeak
In this week’s lesson, Victoroff (2005) suggests that much of the work attempting to understand the psychological motivation behind terrorism is fraught with a lack of empirical evidence in the area of research. Instead, it contains “subjective interpretation of anecdotal observations” (Sneh, 2021, L10 Psychopathological Approaches). Many authors on this topic have described terrorists through psychopathological approaches, such as suggesting these individuals are sociopaths, uneducated, impoverished, people displaying antisocial personality disorders, young men with magical thinking, those with emotional detachment from consequences, ‘crazies,’ and more (Sneh, 2021). They are ‘born that way.’ Others have taken a psychoanalytical approach positing that there is an unconscious drive within individuals that leads them to terrorism, such as narcissistic injuries, childhood trauma, and broken or troubled homes (Sneh, 2021). Yet, the problem with these approaches is that personality alone is not indicative of a person turning to terrorism. Instead, there must be a better explanation for why one takes that path.
Shaw attempts to create this theoretical pathway model to help explain why someone would turn to terrorism. He suggests four elements in his model: early socialization process, which focuses on the parental upbringing, narcissistic injuries that could have occurred from disrupted family life, physical defects, convictions as a youth, and finally failures in education or employment (Shaw, 1986).
What are the paper’s faults and merits?
There are a few elements of Shaw’s model that have merit. Shaw’s theoretical pathway provides a framework for thinking about how people become terrorists. Because it is a conceptual framework, others may extract hypotheses from this model and test them. Another advantage is that it is grounded in observation. Each of the four elements he has linked to other case studies, examples of terrorists, and how individuals moved along that path toward their ultimate transition into terrorism. Another merit is that it provides a nice critique of the medical paradigm and gives great examples as to why the medical paradigm is not valid and, in many cases, not helpful. By providing an alternative based on observation, it helps to move the field along by advancing the paradigm regarding terrorism.
One of the faults of his paper is that he has evidence for steps in the pathway model that help showcase the transition to terrorism – for example, evidence of a police event, or growing up in poverty – but no empirical evidence that links together the steps in the pathway. In addition, it is difficult to have any idea whether those four elements in the pathway he describes are comprehensive or if there are missing elements. In other words, there may be a pathway model, but it may not be comprised of the individual components he described, or, in fact, there may be other components he has not yet identified.
Is it empirically valid?
Typically, empirical research is thought of as statistical, with formal hypothesis tests and P values that indicate statistical significance of data. Shaw’s research does not fit into that mold of empirical research. He offers many research examples based on interviews, observations, and historical work, but there are no P values. So, the initial response would be to suggest that Shaw’s research is not empirically valid. However, the Oxford dictionary definition of empirical is, “based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic” (Lexico, 2021). Every point he makes he backs up with experiences. He does not deduce the pathway model from pure logic, but his research is derived from historical work, observations, or histories of terrorists. By definition, Shaw’s research would be considered empirically valid.
Is the research design adequate?
His research design is adequate in the sense that he proposed an initial theory about why a person turns to terrorism. He suggested four elements or steps in this pathway and leaves the door open for others to test hypotheses based on his model design.
Are there any alternative explanations?

As mentioned previously, Shaw suggests there are four elements to this model, but it is possible that there are other steps Shaw has not considered. In addition, Victoroff (2005) points out that attempts to understand the psychological aspects of turning to terrorism lack testing in a systematic way, offering that one alternative to studying this subject is to undergo “hypothesis-based research and evidence-based policies” (p. 34).

Better understanding the reason a person turns to terrorism is complex and not readily revealed by terrorists themselves. Therefore, research on this topic will require multi-faceted approaches to comprehend why someone would turn to terrorism.

References:

Lexico (20221). Oxford. Retrieved October 26, 2021, from https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/empirical

Shaw, E. D. (1986). Political terrorists: Dangers of diagnosis and an alternative to the psychopathology model. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, Vol 8: 359-368. DOI: 10.1016/0160-2527(86)90066-x

Sneh, I. (2021). Lesson 10 Theoretical paths to terrorism. Retrieved October 25, 2021, from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2145762/pages/l10-overview?module_item_id=32827776

Victoroff, J. (2005). The mind of the terrorist. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 49(1): 3-42. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30045097

Last Completed Projects