"domain, it continues to draw much attention from researchers, policy analysts, governmentagencies, security professionals, and counterterrorism specialists across the board. However, themajority of current findings on the present state of the Islamic State and its operations in Iraqand Syria hold that the intensified counterterrorism efforts and the global coalition strategieshave forced the organization toward its downfall, and eventual defeat in its strongholds.However, the resilience of the group, as well as the reports on its military capabilities, financialbase, and the growing support base from its sympathizers across the globe reveals otherwise(Blanchard and Humud 2016). It is comparatively difficult to determine whether the group isreeling to its downfall or is reorganizing and adopting new sophisticated strategies.There have been comparatively lesser efforts toward the study of the efficiency of thecounterterrorism policies and strategies especially those of the United States that target theIslamic State. Most of the mainstream literature on ISIS focuses on the history and the uniquecenters of gravity for the organization (Dar 2016). Ideally, most of the well-researched andcomprehensive reports on terrorism are policy-based and use a case-by-case approach tostudying terrorism and AQAs. Most of the analytical reports on ISIS are more policy orientedthan theory based and often reference primary source information on the ideologies andpractices of ISIS and other AQAs.Arguably, it is important to note that these case-by-case analyses of terrorist groups inthe Middle East borrow heavily from mainstream news sources and policy reports, andgenerally comprise of counterterrorism recommendations and proposals for the relevantpolicymakers. The current state of the literature on terrorism, the Islamic State, andradicalization in the Middle East shows that, indeed, several theories can be adapted to aid thestudy of the organization, as well as the evaluation of the efficiency of counterterrorism policies4 that seek to undermine the progress of the terrorist group.Apart from the case study approach used by the pioneering studies on terrorism, AQAs,and ISIS, this research study borrows hugely from the Grounded Theory approach. Ideally, thegrounded theory approach to qualitative research involves a sequence of systematic inductiveresearch methods used for conducting qualitative research with a greater focus on developing atheory about the phenomenon under investigation. The terminology can be used to denote aresearch method that consists of very flexible systematic research strategies, as well as theproducts of the research effort (Bryman 2012). However, this term has particularly gained someinterest from the research domain as a method for collecting and analyzing research data. Theresulting analyses of data draw off their power from theoretical foundations and aim atproviding engrossed, abstract, and conceptual ideas that explain the experiential phenomenaunder study.The significance of grounded theory in research studies on terrorism, and ISIS, inparticular, is considerable. Essentially, the theory provides unambiguous, systematic guidelinesfor carrying out qualitative research on a broad span of phenomena. Secondly, the groundedtheory approach provides specific strategies for executing the analytic phases of the researchprocess. Besides, the grounded theory approach is significant because it streamlines, simplifies,and integrates the processes of collecting and analyzing data (Bryman 2012). Thirdly, similarlynoteworthy is that grounded theory enhances the theoretical analysis of the qualitative dataacquired during data collection and legitimizes the qualitative research process as a scientificinquiry.Comparatively, the Case Study approach is also a convenient tool for explaining a set ofcritical decisions such as counterterrorism policies and strategies, especially when the5 researcher does not have much control over key issues such as why policymakers make certainpolicies, the implementation of those policies, or the outcomes of those policies (Bryman 2012).The case study approach also uses several sources of research evidence including directobservations, interviews, and archival records among others, as well as their unique benefits andweaknesses. This approach forms a firm basis for this study in that it supports preceding studiesto fill the critical gaps in the existing literature. Therefore, the case study approach presents anopportunity to improve the state of the research on the subject (Bryman 2012).TerrorismPape (2009) notes that the scholarly literature on terrorism can be crudely organized intotwo distinct streams. Beginning in the 1970s, through the 1990s, research studies on terrorismfocused majorly on the factors that motivate terrorism not only at the individual level but also atthe societal level (Pape, What is new about research on terrorism 2009, 643). Similarly, themajority of these studies focused on distinct causal factors for terrorism, essentially in isolation.As Rapport (1971), Hoffman (1998), and Crenshaw (1981) observe, this literature focusedmostly on the revolutionary extremists of the time, with a primary emphasis on the influence ofan array of irrational factors in the motivation and action of both individual and group terrorists.This preceding literary work constituted the vital foundation for the new wave of terrorismscholarship, mostly found in the post-9/11 era. During this period, researchers such as Byman(2006) Krueger (2007), Sageman (2004), and Kydd and Walter (2006) borrowed heavily fromand, in some cases, criticized previous scholarly work using a broad span of quantitativeresearch and social science techniques as well as more complex tools for research analysis.Over time, secondly, a major line of philosophy and models of explaining terrorism has evolvedaround more objective, rational, and strategic enlightens and accounts for mainstream terrorist6 behavior as well as decision-making (Hafez 2003; Kydd and Walter 2006).Some scholars argue that to understand and analyze the motivations and actions ofterrorist groups, it is equally important to address the discussion in the mainstream literature onthe decision-making process and behavioral traits of these groups (Caravelli 2008, 13; Kaplanand Costa 2015, 930; Pollard, Poplack and Casey 2015, 6; Krueger 2007). In the light of thisargument, researchers such as McCormick (2003) concluded that there are three broadercategories of theories and models on the topic of terrorist behavior and decision-making –strategic, psychological, and organizational models. These theories conform to the conclusion ofassessments by think tanks on the AQAs and jihadist extremists as more locally-based andfocused extremist organizations.Though the theories mentioned above have enjoyed varying levels of support andcriticism, they are all based off on in the assertion that McCormick precisely defines asimpossible to controvert – that the causes of terrorism are in the mind of the individual actor(McCormick 2003). Also important to note is that these theories differ in their perception andconsideration of the notable variation in the social, political, and cultural environment ofterrorists. However, such attributes are beyond the scope of this research study and are notsubject to discussion. In addition, since this research paper focuses on an entire terroristorganization – ISIS, this literature review addresses terrorism at the group level, rather than anindividual one.A considerable amount of literature has also sought to fill the substantial gap betweenstudies on terrorism and the burgeoning literature on dissident or insurgent groups and theelement of violence in civil wars. Notably, the preliminary research on Al Qaeda and itsaffiliated terrorist groups such as ISIS has largely fallen into the first category, with little7 "