This article introduces readers to the Framework for Research Ethics in Terrorism Studies (FRETS). FRETS has been developed to assist IRB/HREC chairs and reviewers in completing reviews of terrorism studies ethics proposals, in as objective a manner as possible. The framework consists of a series of yes/no questions for chairs and reviewers to answer before completing their reviews. These questions are divided into six different sections: participant's right's, safety and vulnerability; informed consent; confidentiality and anonymity; researcher's right's, safety and vulnerability; data storage and security-sensitive materials; and the ethical review process. This framework was developed as a result of critical analysis of the literature in terrorism research and analogous fields.

No abstract

No abstract

To elucidate some of the psychological implications of involvement in terrorism, this study investigated whether former members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) experienced moral injury. Ten autobiographical sources from former IRA members who were active during the ‘Troubles’ in Northern Ireland were qualitatively analysed through interpretative phenomenological analysis. The analysis yielded preliminary evidence of morally injurious experiences and symptoms. These symptoms were commonly coped with through reparative actions. Three types of morally injurious experiences were found in this population: experiences associated with the IRA’s strategy of violence; experiences of informing; and experiences during the hunger strike campaigns. Additionally, there was evidence of moral disillusionment with the IRA. The analysis also identified factors that decreased susceptibility to moral injury. How moral injury and moral disillusionment might have played a role in disengagement from the IRA is discussed.

This article introduces readers to the Framework for Research Ethics in Terrorism Studies (FRETS). FRETS has been developed to assist IRB/HREC chairs and reviewers in completing reviews of terrorism studies ethics proposals, in as objective a manner as possible. The framework consists of a series of yes/no questions for chairs and reviewers to answer before completing their reviews. These questions are divided into six different sections: participant's right's, safety and vulnerability; informed consent; confidentiality and anonymity; researcher's right's, safety and vulnerability; data storage and security-sensitive materials; and the ethical review process. This framework was developed as a result of critical analysis of the literature in terrorism research and analogous fields.