ABSTRACT
It is generally assumed that the way in which securitization occurs is essentially an empirical question, but, paradoxically, there has been little discussion on methods. To exacerbate the problem, scholars of IR have often been divided in their speculations over whether we should pay attention to method at all (Milliken 1999: 226). Further, there is considerable disagreement over the rationales for choosing a specific method: Why and when, for example, is discourse analysis preferred, rather than participant observation, let alone process-tracing and content analysis, and what differences these choices ultimately make in grasping policy processes (Neuendorf 2002; Herrera and Braumoeller 2004: 15-39). The peculiarities of these approaches to security are compelling, so much so that the hardest and clearest obstacle which students of securitization face is to simply make sense of this diversity.1 Finally, the distinction between method and methodology is, by itself, grounds for controversy.2
