Although the empirical and analytical study of terrorism has grown dramatically in the past decade and a half to incorporate more sophisticated statistical and econometric methods, data validity is still an open, first-order question. Specifically, methods for treating missing data often rely on strong, untestable, and often implicit assumptions about the nature of the missing values. The current study drew on Manski's concept of no-assumption bounds to demonstrate the vulnerability of empirical results to different tactics for treating missing cases. This report concludes by advocating for researchers to be transparent when building analytical models about the assumptions they are making about the nature of the data and their implications for the analysis and its interpretation. This article concludes by advocating for researchers, when building their models, to be transparent about the assumptions they are making about the nature of the data and their implications for the analysis and its interpretation. (Publisher abstract modified)
Downloads
Related Datasets
Similar Publications
- The Impact of Concealed and Open Carry Legislation Among Urban Settings in Kentucky and Oklahoma: Final Report to the National Institute of Justice
- Does Future Orientation Moderate the Relationship Between Impulse Control and Offending? Insights From a Sample of Serious Young Offenders
- A Novel Two-Step Method for the Detection of Organic Gunshot Residue for Forensic Purposes: Fast Fluorescence Imaging Followed by Raman Microspectroscopic Identification