Over the past decade, radicalisation has emerged as perhaps the most pervasive framework for understanding micro-level transitions towards violence. However, the concept has not only become a dominant policing framework, but also an overarching governmental strategy encompassing surveillance, security, risk and community engagement. The emergence of this strategy has been accompanied by a whole host of analysts, advisers and scholars, who claim to possess ‘expert’ knowledge of individual transitions towards political violence. Revisiting ‘Radicalisation: the journey of a concept’, Arun Kundnani’s 2012 typology of such ‘expertise’ ( Race & Class, doi 10.1177/0306396812454984), the author comparatively examines scholarly developments in relation to ‘radicalisation’ and juxtaposes new knowledge claims with official government counter-radicalisation strategies and funding programmes in the UK, US and Canada to highlight how some of the most problematic knowledge claims continue to influence social policy as we move forward in the global ‘war on terror’.
No abstract
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.