Beyond Data Collection: Advocating a Contextualised and Reflexive Paradigm in Terrorism Research

Author: Balananthini Balasubramaniam (@SmallDrops)

Date: 09 October 2025

Location: Canada

Abstract

Contemporary terrorism scholarship remains disproportionately anchored in archival data collection, often at the expense of nuanced engagement with evolving threats. This methodological rigidity reproduces entrenched narratives and marginalises strategically salient phenomena. Using the example of the disproportionate scholarly focus on the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the Irish Republican Army (IRA), contrasted with the relative neglect of the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings in Sri Lanka, this article argues for a paradigmatic reorientation: from retrospective case cataloguing to a politically conscious and contextually grounded framework capable of interrogating both the genesis and trajectory of violence.

Keywords: Terrorism Studies, LTTE, IRA, Easter Sunday Bombings, Methodological Bias, Critical Terrorism Studies, Transnational Jihadism.

1. Introduction

The field of terrorism research has long demonstrated a structural conservatism, privileging historically visible cases and established datasets over emergent and adaptive threats. While comprehensive databases such as the Global Terrorism Database (GTD) and the Global Terrorism Trends and Analysis Centre (GTTAC) remain invaluable, their epistemic orientation often privileges incidents with archival longevity. Consequently, more recent attacks — such as the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings in Sri Lanka — receive limited scholarly attention despite their international reach and complex geopolitical implications (Gunaratna, 2020; Cronin, 2019).

2. Methodological and Epistemological Gaps

The disproportionate focus on the LTTE and the IRA reflects a persistent bias within terrorism studies. Both groups are repeatedly deployed as canonical case studies in discussions of insurgency, suicide terrorism, and peacebuilding. While such attention is historically justified, it risks reinforcing a static interpretive framework that fails to capture the evolving modalities of contemporary terrorism (LaFree & Dugan, 2007). This over‑reliance on historical precedent obscures the changing nature of extremist networks and the integration of cyber, religious, and ideological warfare into modern forms of violence.

3. Political and Institutional Determinants

Academic inquiry does not exist in a political vacuum. Research agendas are often shaped by institutional funding, policy sensitivities, and dominant geopolitical narratives. Incidents implicating powerful transnational or state‑linked actors tend to be deprioritised (Jackson, 2016). The omission of the Easter Sunday bombings from mainstream analyses is therefore not merely methodological but strategic — a silence that sustains existing power structures while evading the identification of real and present adversaries.

4. Towards a Reflexive Framework

A comprehensive and ethical approach to terrorism research demands a paradigm shift towards reflexivity and contextualisation. This includes:

1. Dynamic Threat Analysis — recognising emergent modalities such as cyber‑terrorism, drone warfare, and hybrid insurgency.

2. Contextualisation — situating acts of violence within socio‑political, historical, and geopolitical frameworks of oppression, occupation, and injustice.

3. Critical Reflexivity — examining the politics of knowledge production and the ideological assumptions embedded within research agendas.

These elements require deliberate incorporation of a critical examination of state narratives and their influence on both public perception and scholarly analysis of terrorism.

State Narratives and the Politics of Delegitimisation

A pervasive feature of contemporary terrorism discourse, particularly in the context of the Sri Lankan civil war, is the constructed narrative that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) systematically targeted civilians. This portrayal is not merely a matter of contested interpretation but a politically engineered narrative, disseminated extensively by the Sri Lankan state and allied media networks as part of a broader strategy to delegitimise Tamil resistance and justify military counter‑insurgency operations (Hoole, 2012; Seneviratne, 2016).

Empirical evidence challenges this assertion. The LTTE’s operational conduct, particularly in strategically sensitive missions, demonstrates a deliberate effort to avoid civilian casualties. The Katunayake International Airport attack (2001) exemplifies this, where the assault was executed with precision against high‑value military targets — namely Sri Lankan Air Force assets — and despite the scale and complexity of the operation, not a single civilian casualty was reported (Gunaratna, 2001). This fact directly contradicts official narratives portraying the LTTE as indifferent to civilian harm.

Such selective representation functions as a political instrument of delegitimisation. By framing the LTTE predominantly as a civilian‑targeting organisation, the Sri Lankan state effectively constructed moral justification for its protracted counter‑insurgency campaign — one that culminated in large‑scale human rights violations and the systematic erasure of Tamil civilian presence in conflict zones (Uyangoda, 2015).

This phenomenon illustrates a deeper methodological and epistemological imperative in terrorism studies: scholars must critically interrogate how political power shapes narratives of violence. Failure to do so risks replicating state‑crafted myths that obscure the realities of conflict and perpetuate injustice under the guise of counter‑terrorism.

5. Comparative Context: Analysing LTTE, IRA, and ISIS Easter Sunday Attacks

A nuanced understanding of terrorism demands comparative analysis of diverse militant movements, not merely in terms of their tactics but also their ideological underpinnings, objectives, scope, and scholarly treatment. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the Irish Republican Army (IRA), and the ISIS‑orchestrated Easter Sunday attacks in Sri Lanka (2019) exemplify distinct operational paradigms within the broader field of political violence.

• LTTE

The LTTE emerged in 1976 as an ethno‑nationalist militant movement, pursuing the establishment of an independent Tamil state in Sri Lanka. Its operational period, extending until 2009, was characterised by guerrilla warfare, targeted assassinations, and suicide attacks embedded in a structured military strategy. The LTTE’s operations were geographically confined primarily to Sri Lanka, although its political influence resonated internationally through the Tamil diaspora. It has been subject to intense scholarly attention, often cited as a paradigmatic case of ethno‑nationalist insurgency shaping counter‑insurgency policy and civil‑war studies (Kalyvas, 2006; Byman, 2016).

• IRA

The IRA — active from 1969 until 2005 — represented an ethno‑nationalist insurgent organisation operating primarily in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. Its primary objective was to end British rule in Northern Ireland and unify Ireland. The IRA conducted a diverse range of operations, including bombings, assassinations, and urban insurgency. While geographically limited to the UK and Ireland, its operations became central to the study of insurgency, terrorism, and peace processes, influencing legislative frameworks and political discourse on counter‑terrorism (Cronin, 2019).

• ISIS & Easter Sunday Attacks

The ISIS‑orchestrated Easter Sunday attacks on 21 April 2019 represent a markedly different model of terrorism. These attacks were a single, highly coordinated operation targeting churches and hotels in Colombo, Negombo, and Batticaloa, resulting in 259 deaths and over 500 injuries. Unlike the LTTE and IRA, ISIS operates as a transnational jihadist terrorist network, seeking to establish a global Caliphate. Its geographical scope extends far beyond Sri Lanka, with ideological and operational reach across multiple continents. The Easter Sunday attacks thus constitute a paradigm of contemporary transnational terrorism — synchronised, ideologically motivated, and designed to target civilians for maximum psychological and symbolic impact (Gunaratna, 2020).

This comparative analysis demonstrates that terrorism is not a monolith. Operational logic reflects specific historical, political, and ideological contexts. An academically robust terrorism studies must therefore engage comparatively, recognising both continuities and divergences in terrorist praxis.

6. Conclusion

The neglect of contemporary transnational attacks such as the Easter Sunday bombings reveals a methodological inertia and a form of selective vision in terrorism scholarship. Overemphasis on the LTTE and the IRA has fossilised research priorities, privileging historical comfort zones over emergent realities. To move forward, terrorism studies must transcend data collection and adopt a politically reflexive praxis — one that acknowledges power, context, and complicity. Only through such critical expansion can the discipline contribute meaningfully to understanding and confronting the genuine architectures of twenty‑first‑century insecurity.

References

• Byman, D. (2016) ‘Understanding Proto‑Insurgencies’, Journal of Strategic Studies, 39(3), pp. 345–368.

• Cronin, A. K. (2019) How Terrorism Ends. Princeton University Press.

• Gunaratna, R. (2001) ‘The LTTE and the 2001 Katunayake Attack’, Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses, 3(5), pp. 15–19.

• Gunaratna, R. (2020) ‘Sri Lanka and the Easter Sunday Bombings’, Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses, 12(4), pp. 7–12.

• Hoole, R. (2012) Sri Lanka: The Arrogance of Power. University of Colombo Press.

• Jackson, R. (2016) Critical Terrorism Studies: An Introduction. Routledge.

• Kalyvas, S. N. (2006) The Logic of Violence in Civil War. Cambridge University Press.

• LaFree, G. and Dugan, L. (2007) ‘Introducing the Global Terrorism Database’, Terrorism and Political Violence, 19(2), pp. 181–204.

• Seneviratne, K. (2016) War and Peace in Sri Lanka. Colombo: Vijitha Yapa Publications.

• Uyangoda, J. (2015) ‘The Politics of Civil War and the LTTE’, South Asian Journal of Peace Studies, 4(1), pp. 55–72

© 2025 Balananthini Balasubramaniam (@SmallDrops).

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other non‑commercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, contact the author smalldropsnila@gmail.com

(Disclaimer: Images are AI generated and are used for representational purposes only)

***************************************************************