Building resilience to radicalization has become a key pillar of many policies for preventing violent extremism. However, sustained debates over the precise nature of the terms radicalisation and resilience impact the ability to implement these policies. A growing body of literature argues that the way in which key ideas are understood matters to what happens in practice. Additionally, the cross-sector collaboration called for in PVE policy can be made more challenging through divergences in understanding of central concepts. As such, the way in which resilience to radicalization is being understood by frontline workers matters. In light of this, a q-methodology study was conducted, which identified four perspectives on resilience to radicalization amongst policy-makers and practitioners in Belgium, the Netherlands, and the UK. These perspectives are examined in light of the broader debates around both resilience and radicalization, and the extent to which the divergences matter for collaboration is considered.
Full text via link. Norms in research ethics and regulation regarding the collection of personal data and requirements posed by the European Committee concerning Framework Program 7 research require researchers to carry out interviews under informed consent. This means that the interviewed person is informed about the goal of the project, knows who to contact with questions concerning the project, how to retract their data and knows that participation is voluntary. Both the interviewee and the researcher should sign an informed consent form in which this information is made explicit.
LINK
In recent years, the fight against (violent) extremism has focused more on anticipating the threats that they pose. Therefore, early detection of undemocratic ideas by local professionals has become an important part of the preventive approach in counter terrorism radicalisation. Frontline workers who operate in the arteries of society are encouraged to identify processes toward violent behaviour at an early stage. To date, however, little is known about how these professionals take on this screening task at their own discretion. The analysis of 55 interviews with youth workers, municipality civil servants, and community police officers, show that they tended to be insufficiently equipped in general to detect radicalisation towards (violent) extremism at the local level in the Netherlands. Firstly, this is due to varying contents and qualities of training courses which are not suited to building up solid expertise. Secondly, and most importantly, the recognising of deviant behaviour is presumably carried out with a one-sided focus on personal norms and values rather than structured judgements about pathways towards risky behaviour. Various value systems seem to influence the norm for early detection, which means that there is, in practice, a lack of clear indicators.
LINK
