Stéphane J. Baele

Diagnosing the Securitisation of Immigration at the EU Level: A New Method for Stronger Empirical Claims

Has immigration been securitised at the EU level? The question has been hotly discussed, but no consensus has been reached. This article claims that two shortcomings – one methodological, one theoretical – in the empirical conduct of securitisation theory (ST) have provoked this lack of consensus. Taking this situation as an opportunity, a quantitative method is introduced that addresses these two shortcomings, thereby helping to reach a stronger claim on the securitisation of immigration at the EU level. By measuring the intensity of the security framing in EU legislation on immigration, the method helps avoid simplistic binary statements of (non-)securitisation and encourages the scholar to acknowledge the complex, multifaceted reality of vast political fields. The results contribute to accrediting the thesis according to which immigration has been securitised at the EU level, but nuances it by demonstrating a significant variation between the various subfields of the policy (e.g. asylum, legal immigration).

Theorizing and Measuring Emotions in Conflict

While recent research has demonstrated the key role played by emotion in conflicts, the interplay between the individual and collective dimensions of this variable has not yet been fully conceptualized and satisfyingly measured. Focusing on the 2011 Palestinian statehood bid at the United Nations and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, this article highlights the circular character of group-based emotional dynamics and stresses the importance of “emotional worldviews” and “emotional configurations.” We subsequently provide an innovative, robust, and repeatable quantitative method for the direct measuring of these two components. This threefold contribution—theoretical, methodological, empirical—completes recent models (chiefly the appraisal-based framework) and unfolds new research avenues for the study of the role of individual and collective emotions in conflicts.

Are terrorists “insane”? A critical analysis of mental health categories in lone terrorists’ trials

Lone terrorists’ trials very often include long discussions on the mental health of suspects. This article offers a critical analysis of the mental health categories that are used in lone terrorists’ trials. By examining how the judicial concept of “insanity” collided with the psychiatric classification of mental illnesses in Breivik’s and Kaczynski’s trials, I suggest that lone terrorists’ trials can be understood as ritualistic devices whose latent function for society is to reaffirm its progressive values. This is done through the consolidation of a cognitive prototype of the category of the “insane reactionary terrorist.”

Security through numbers? Experimentally assessing the impact of numerical arguments in security communication:

Numerical arguments are increasingly present in security communication and are widely assumed to possess a distinct capacity to make an argument convincing, thereby contributing to the dynamics of securitization. Yet, does the inclusion of numbers really enhance the strength of rhetorical attempts to convince an audience that something or someone is a security problem? We examine this question by developing an experimental design that connects cognitive theories of information processing with theories of security and risk communication. Contrary to a widely shared view, our results suggest that numbers do not have a direct, unambiguous, or unconditional impact on the strength of security rhetoric. Quantitative information only enhances direct attempts to securitize issues under very specific circumstances and, even in these cases, has ambiguous effects. Factors such as the legitimacy of the individual who makes the argument may play an important role in determining the impact of numbers in security communication.

What do Academic Metrics do to Political Scientists? Theorizing their Roots, Locating their Effects

This article argues that it is pertinent to situate academic metrics (journal, institutions and individual scholars’ rankings and ratings) within the broader logic of neoliberal government, in order to better identify and understand the impact of these metrics on political scientists’ perceptions, behaviours and identities. The results of a pilot survey conducted among political scientists in the United Kingdom and Belgium are used in order to further expose this impact. More precisely, we claim that although metrics are widely seen as a core element of a broader and undesirable political agenda, their repeated use leads to their endorsement, shapes and standardizes individual strategies, and shifts the codes of academic identity to the point of eroding academics’ sense of purpose and permeating their judgements about colleagues.