The report
consists of a literature review and analysis of the existing research concerning 'countering violent extremism'. This multifaceted report demonstrates the complexity of understanding Violent Extremism and best strategies to Countering Violent Extremism. This has been undertaken with the broader analysis of radicalisation and social cohesion theories, models and government policies and how they may impact on or contribute to best practice and policy in countering violent extremism.The authors comment that -
Part 1 of the report provides the foundations to understanding key concepts under review – terrorism, violent extremism, radicalisation and social cohesions. It also examines the theories and problems behind these concepts and how they in turn may assist in future policy initiatives and understandings of these areas of interest. The most significant critique that emerges from Part 1 of the report is the absence of universally accepted definitions for key concepts such as of terrorism, radicalisation and social cohesion.The report makes the following recommendations -
Research of the post-2000 literature also suggests that not much has changed in the field of terrorism studies. A survey of the literature on terrorism generally highlights other deficiencies: first, a lack of primary source analysis; second, a continued general shortage of experienced researchers on this topic; third, the majority of authors who haven’t met with terrorists or undertaken any fieldwork in the area being written about; fourth, the reliance on limited methodologies and levels of analysis; and fifth, remarkably, little academic analyses is devoted to critiquing research into VE and terrorism studies. This is clearly shown by the limited number of relevant articles focusing on empirical research and the lack of seriously tested quantitative and qualitative field research or survey results.
Gaps that arise in the literature review include the lack of clarity as to how individuals move from simply being frustrated or disaffected towards accepting violence as a mode of political struggle. The problem again is that understandings of terrorism as set out in the literature still cannot explain why some people become terrorists whilst others do not. It is easy enough to show how radical ideas are internalised by terrorists post facto. But this does not explain why some people exposed to radical ideas are not radicalised. In fact, the majority of people exposed to radical ideas are not radicalised.
Part 2 of the report details the theories, debates and discussions arising within and among disciplines on the ‘root causes’ of VE/Terrorism. Responding to the ‘root causes’ of conflict means that approaches to countering violent extremism need to be embedded in consideration of the social, economic, political and historical contexts in which violence arises and the applicability and transferability of strategies between nations. The literature has demonstrated over the years that root causes are not static rather they are dynamic, fluid and constantly changing.
Part 3 of the report examines the development of multifaceted approaches to countering violent extremism through capacity building and innovation to respond to ‘new’ and complex forms of contemporary terrorism and violent extremism. A key tenet in much of the writing on countering violent extremism is that multifaceted approaches are needed (S Atran, 2004; R. Crelinsten, 2009; J Mroz, 2009a).
Part 4 of the report examines Counterproductive CVE. To prevent “counterproductive counterterrorism", Wilkinson (2001: 210) argues that “Above all, governments should try and avoid over-reaction and repression by their security forces”. The literature suggests that to do so hard power strategies for countering violent extremism must be carefully calibrated to be firm but never excessive, non-discriminatory, apolitical (Aly, 2008; Crelinsten, 2007) and adhere to established normative democratic frameworks and judicial processes (Crenshaw, 2010; Roth, 2008; Sabadia & Austin, 2007; Stohl, 2006; van Ginkel & Westervelt, 2009).
Develop an empirical research base
The majority of the literature in the field comprises commentary and critique and lacks an empirical research basis (Crenshaw, 2000; Loza, 2007; Ranstorp, 2006). Given that some areas of inquiry face unique challenges in the collection of primary data, innovative and creative methods need to be developed. Ranstorp (2006) argues that researchers need to tap into available primary source data in national archives including policy documents and public testimonies, court records and reports, and terrorist websites.
Invest in social science and transdisciplinary research approaches
Much of the research within the field is event-driven, reactionary and technically oriented (Ranstorp, 2006). To develop an in-depth, comprehensive, and contextualised knowledge base for understanding violent extremism and countering violent extremism as complex phenomena requires investment in collaborative and transdisciplinary social science and field-based methodologies (S. Atran, 2010; Crelinsten, 2007; Loza, 2007; Ranstorp, 2006; Sinai, 2007). Case studies are one method useful for situating forms of violent extremism and for developing approaches to countering violent extremism within their historical, political, and social contexts. However, relational analyses within and between cases are also needed to develop knowledge in the field (Duyvesteyn, 2007; Ranstorp, 2006). Phenomenological and ethnographic approaches would also enable researchers to capture the complexity of these phenomena and develop in-depth understandings of the experiences of those that participate in terrorist or violent extremist groups.
Develop scholarship and academic praxis in the field
Scholarship that conceptualises and theorises violent extremism and countering violent extremism as ontological phenomena that emerge in relation to particular contexts is required. Such approaches would move stagnant debates in the literature beyond superficial issues focussing on lack of theory and agreement on conceptual definition. Contemporary research must also build new contributions to the knowledge base upon the foundations of previous research through comparison, critique and the synthesis of research findings (Ranstorp, 2006). In addition, there is a lack of literature that focuses on methodology and research methods which given the importance of developing an empirical base in this field is required to advance research (Ranstorp, 2006).
Develop cross-fertilisation of knowledge between the intelligence community, academic disciplines and professionals in the field to enhance the relevance of research and the translation of research findings into practice
Resnyansky (2009: 52) writes that "There is an abyss dividing terrorism research from political, legal and national security practices". Bridging this 'researchpractice' gap therefore needs to be an object of methodological analysis and comparative research focussed on how other fields have approached this issue could be used to inform strategies. There are also divisions between different academic disciplines such as ‘intelligence studies’ and ‘terrorism studies’ (Ranstorp, 2006). To break down these ‘knowledge silos’ requires collaboration and inter-disciplinary communication through conferences and professional associations.
Research and scholarship is needed that focuses on ‘new’ forms of terrorism and violent extremism
Given that ‘new’ forms of terrorism are assembled according to transnational networks, research is needed to explore how these organisational forms operate and evolve including processes of innovation within groups (Brimley, 2006; Crenshaw, 2000; Ranstorp, 2006). A traditional focus on terrorism as an international phenomenon means that in the post 7/7 context there is a need to understand the emergence of what is dubbed ‘home grown’ terrorism and violent extremism. Violent extremism is expressed through a multiplicity of forms and guises and so there is an urgent need to expand the research gaze beyond Islamism and Muslim communities to the broader phenomenon.
Research and scholarship is needed to understand why some radicalised individuals become violent and why others don’t.
A current lack of clarity exists as to how individuals move from simply being frustrated or disaffected towards accepting violence as a mode of political struggle. The problem again is that they still do not explain why some people become terrorists and not others. In fact, the majority of people exposed to radical ideas are not radicalised.
Research and scholarship is needed that specifically focuses on approaches and strategies for countering violent extremism
As O’Neil (2007: 437) observes there has been a “shortfall of serious scholarly analysis of counter-terrorism”. Comparative research focussed on strategies for countering violent extremism would enable the development of best practice standards and enhance harmonisation and collaboration between nations and regions (Crelinsten, 2007; Guiora, 2009; O’Neil, 2007; Ranstorp, 2006). New forms of terrorism characterised by decentralisation and dispersion of ‘networks’ requires research on “what kind of counterterrorism networks would best meet the challenges they pose” (Crelinsten, 2007: 224).
To avoid counterproductive strategies, Crenshaw (2000) argues that it is important to investigate how terrorist groups perceive government actions and whether policy makers anticipate the effects of their actions on terrorist beliefs and perceptions or appreciate the adversary’s construction of reality. He also argues that research should focus on how governments learn from past experiences and build intellectual capital in dealing with terrorism and violent extremism.
Given the increasing inclusion and responsibility of the private sector in approaches for countering violent extremism, “Research in this area should focus on the different agencies that have been incorporated into the counterterrorism effort and examine how they have adapted to working in an environment with conflicting and competing demands for secrecy, openness, impunity and accountability”(Crelinsten, 2007: 226).
Research and scholarship is needed on the role of the media and information technology in relation to violent extremism and countering violent extremism
In relation to the role of the media, research is needed to analyse the ways in which terrorists use the mass media and the mass media has been used in strategies for countering violent extremism (Cvrtila & Perešin, 2009; Turk, 2004). In addition, the potential for media representation to contribute to tensions, conflict and potentially violence is a vast area for research (Crelinsten, 2007; Turk, 2004).
Research and scholarship is needed that focuses on pathways into and out of violent extremism Long term sustainable and effective approaches to countering violent extremism require an understanding of the pathways into and out of violent extremism (S. Atran, 2010). Research is needed to explore the processes and drivers of individual and collective mobilisation and disengagement (Chowdhury Fink & Hearne, 2008; Crenshaw, 2000; Ranstorp, 2006). As Chowdhury Fink and Hearne (2008: 18) argue, this “will assist states in better understanding how these processes relate to their counterterrorism strategies and capacities”.
A diversity of cultural approaches and discursive frames are needed to inform research and scholarship on violent extremism and countering violent extremism
The literature in the fields of violent extremism and countering violent extremism are dominated by discursive frames that emanate from western and particularly US epistemology and culture (Jongman, 2007; Ranstorp, 2006). There is an urgent need to enrich scholarship in these fields through alternative cultural and theoretical perspectives. This would include developing understandings of violent extremism from non-western cultural positions but also generating research on diverse language, religious, cultural, psychological, historical, political, and social backgrounds to inform culturally sensitive approaches and practices (Loza, 2007).
