Question – 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!

· At least 500 words with references and annotations

Research Design (Current and Working Reseaerch)

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.