黑料社

IN 2015, the UK Government introduced the Prevent Duty, which obliges schools, colleges and universities to adopt systems for detecting signs of radicalisation that could draw students into terrorism.  Is it working?  An award-winning article by researchers at the 黑料社 casts doubt on its effectiveness.

Titled Radicalisation and higher education: Students鈥� understanding and experiences, the article is authored by  and , who are senior lecturers in politics.  After appearing in the journal , it is now announced as winner of the 2019 best publication award in the scientific paper category, bestowed by the Children鈥檚 Identity and Citizenship European Association. 

The article argues that the Prevent Duty, which was originally developed in the prison system, is too confusing to apply and certainly not appropriate for a Higher Education setting.

Under the guidance scheme, academics are asked to watch for 鈥榮igns鈥� of potential radicalisation based on the , a guidance tool which has been in use across Her Majesty鈥檚 Prison and Probation Service of England and Wales since 2011.

The signs or factors include 鈥渁 need to redress injustice鈥�, 鈥渢he need for excitement, comradeship or adventure鈥�, 鈥渢ransitional periods鈥� and 鈥渙ver identification with a group, cause or ideology鈥�, although the expression 鈥渙ver-identification鈥� is never clearly defined.

黑料社 at 黑料社

The authors criticise the factors as being too broad and not fit for purpose given that many young people, particularly in higher education, already display some of these indicators in the course of their everyday student lives and certainly not as part of extremist tendencies. 

The papers states that only a few of the factors in the ERG22+ would be immediate cause for concern with regard to security.  However, a larger concern would be the risk that people could be referred to the authorities with insufficient justification, and that the effects of such interventions could be harmful to them. 

Understanding radicalisation as against extremism

To research the article, the authors conducted focus groups designed to elicit students鈥� understanding of radicalisation and gain insights into their experience of debating contentious issues such as identity, community cohesion and the causes of terrorism. 

The article argues that students鈥� understanding of radicalisation is conflated with extremism and the authors explore students鈥� anxiety about debating these topics.  The authors present data that challenges some of the assumptions underpinning counter-radicalisation policy in higher education, which are based on ideas of active grooming. 

鈥淲e argue that this does not accord with students鈥� own experiences, as they regard themselves as discerning, critical thinkers rather than inherently vulnerable to manipulation by those espousing violent extremist views,鈥� write Dr McGlynn and Dr McDaid.

One size fits all?

The ERG22+ was .  It was based on their observation of a relatively limited number of extremist offenders in England and Wales and didn鈥檛 follow the usual conventions of an academic study.  

It was originally intended that the ERG22+ would be deployed by those able to exercise structured professional judgement, but was rolled out at an almost societal level as the Prevent Duty, despite the limits of the sample it is based upon and the minimal training afforded to those who are required to apply the duty.  

鈥淭his is not the fault of those who designed the guidance,鈥� says Dr McDaid, 鈥渂ut it should have been given greater consideration before making it the basis of national policy.

鈥淭here is also an element of duplication because there is existing legislation under which any member of the public is obliged to report a security threat to the authorities.  We think that鈥檚 probably more useful than the vagaries of the Prevent Duty and being asked to look at opinions and behaviours which may not be problematic at all,鈥� he added.