Dialogue, praxis and the state: a response to Richard Jackson

Just get on with it: Implementing the Prevent duty in higher education and the role of academic expertise

“…As counter-terrorism increasingly encroaches onto the education sector, both the impact of counter-terrorism objectives in reframing the purpose of education (see Gearon, 2013; O’Donnell, 2016) and the relationship between academics and counter-terrorism have become the subject of debate. A recent exchange between Jackson (2016) and Toros (2016) exemplifies the latter, and the article is situated within this context: namely, can academics engage with state counter-terrorism in productive ways? Jackson (2016) argues that the trajectory of the war on terror shows that counter-terrorism has become more nebulous as the remit of counter-terrorism processes and practices has expanded to incorporate more parts of society and its reach has extended across the globe.…”

“…On the other hand, Toros (2016) argues that in her experience of engaging with counter-terrorism practitioners, there are times when tiny fissures emerge which academics can take advantage of for the purposes of furthering a more progressive agenda. In other ways, Gillborn (2008) makes a case for engagement in the context of anti-racist struggles in education.…”

“…Adopting those positions is difficult when primarily seeking impact and relevance above an ethical commitment to human rights and human security because it can also result in the level of impact dwindling over time. Toros (2016) struggled with such a problem: how to balance continued access and being heard with remaining faithful to research findings that may sometimes highlight the problems of state policy and practice. She found herself modifying language, stumbling and self-censoring to fight off the fear of rejection and come across as a reasonable person.…”

“…The article starts by outlining some of the debates around academic engagement with the state for the purposes of counter-terrorism. On one hand, there are those who view engagement as an exercise in futility (Bazian, 2016; Jackson, 2016), while on the other hand, there are those who see some potential to advance a progressive agenda by taking advantage of small fissures (Toros, 2016). These debates have acquired a new vitality since the introduction of the Prevent duty, so the next sections set out this context by outlining the Prevent duty responsibilities of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and how the university formulated its approach to the Prevent duty.…”

Introduction: 10 years ofCritical Studies on Terrorism

“…Related to this, the journal has continued to encourage greater reflexivity among scholars of terrorism about the ethics and consequences of the research process, the ways in which knowledge is used by different actors, and the role of the scholar in relation to their research subjects and to existing power structures in society. A recent issue, for example, includes a debate between two of the current editors about whether CTS scholars ought to engage with policymakers or instead reject policy relevance and make common cause with resistance groups (see Jackson 2016;Toros 2016). Despite such disagreements on with whom one should engage, CTS has remained committed to an engagement with the world, whether by standing quite literally side by side with protest movements across the world (as advocated by Jackson 2016 and in this issue) or through listening empathetically to Israeli women combatants (as argued in Daphna-Tekoah and Harel-Shalev also in this issue).…”