ABSTRACT This article calls for more understanding of the ethical challenges and dilemmas that arise as a result of state involvement in academic research on ‘terrorism’ and ‘extremism’. It suggests that researchers and research institutions need to be more attentive to the possibilities of co-option, compromise, conflict of interests and other ethical issues. The paper empirically examines the relationship between academic researchers and the security state. It highlights three key ways in which ethical and professional standards in social scientific research can be compromised: (1) Interference with the evidence base (through a lack of transparency on data and conflicts of interest); (2) Collaboration on research supporting deception by the state which undermines the ability of citizens to participate in democratic processes; and (3) Collaboration on research legitimating human rights abuses, and other coercive state practices. These issues are widespread, but neglected, across: literature on ‘terrorism’ and ‘extremism’; literature on research ethics; and, in practical ethical safeguards and procedures within research institutions. In order to address these issues more effectively, we propose that any assessment of research ethics must consider the broader power relations that shape knowledge production as well as the societal impact of research. In focusing on the centrality of states – the most powerful actors in the field of ‘terrorism’ and ‘extremism’ – our approach moves beyond the rather narrow procedural approaches that currently predominate. We argue more attention to the power of the state in research ethics will not only help to make visible, and combat, ethically problematic issues, but will also help to protect the evidence base from contamination. We conclude by proposing a series of practical measures to address the problems highlighted.

中文翻译：

---

“恐怖主义”和“极端主义”研究中的秘密，胁迫和欺骗

摘要本文呼吁人们更多地了解国家参与“恐怖主义”和“极端主义”学术研究所产生的伦理挑战和困境。它表明，研究人员和研究机构需要更加注意共同选择，妥协，利益冲突和其他道德问题的可能性。本文从经验上考察了学术研究人员与安全状态之间的关系。它强调了可以破坏社会科学研究中的道德和专业标准的三种主要方式：（1）干扰证据基础（由于数据缺乏透明度和利益冲突）；（2）支持支持国家欺骗的研究合作，这削弱了公民参与民主进程的能力；（3）在使侵犯人权行为合法化的研究和其他强制性国家实践方面进行合作。这些问题在以下各方面普遍存在，但被忽略了：关于“恐怖主义”和“极端主义”的文献；研究伦理文献；以及研究机构内部的实用道德保障和程序。为了更有效地解决这些问题，我们建议对研究伦理的任何评估都必须考虑影响知识生产以及研究的社会影响的更广泛的权力关系。在关注国家的中心性时，即“恐怖主义”和“极端主义”领域中最强大的行为者，我们的方法超越了目前占主导地位的狭窄程序方法。我们认为，更多地关注国家在研究伦理方面的力量不仅将有助于使其可见，而且将 道德上有问题的问题，但也将有助于保护证据基础免受污染。最后，我们提出了一系列切实可行的措施来解决突出的问题。