Polarisation, radicalisation and social policy: evaluating the theories of change

Abstract

This article evaluates the validity of 'theories of change' of anti-polarisation and anti-radicalisation interventions. Assumptions of four dominant social policies are confronted with the literature. In addition, epistemological issues are discussed. Notions of 'what works and why', do not equate to straightforward application. Also, the potential of the four policy approaches depends in great measure on their conceptualisation of 'polarisation' or 'radicalisation'. A focus on interventions could be dismissed as naive, when no account is offered of wider sociopolitical factors fuelling radicalisation or ethnic tensions. The interaction between these two notions is a relevant topic for future research.

Implementing ‘Prevent’ in countering violent extremism in the UK: A left-realist critique

“…In reality, polarisation poses a greater threat than radicalisation, pitching indigenous minority and majority groups against each other. It results in ideological, cultural and political conflict rather than violent extremism or terrorism (Lub, 2013). The family is also crucial, although it is necessary to ensure that interest in this aspect does not promote the 'suspect community' paradigm (Spalek, 2016).…”

‘Radicalisation’: The Transformation of Modern Understanding of Terrorist Origins, Psychology and Motivation

“…Linked with the quest for significance, many theories have assumed that individuals with lower levels of self-esteem can be more vulnerable to radicalisation. 31 In this framework, the extremist ideology can offer people a way to enhance their self-esteem. Recent research results, however, suggest a more complex picture with self-esteem effects.…”

Increasing self‐esteem and empathy to prevent violent radicalization: a longitudinal quantitative evaluation of a resilience training focused on adolescents with a dual identity

“…That is, many interventions focused on preventing radicalization aim at “empowering” individuals by increasing their self‐esteem. However, it has been suggested that empowerment may actually boost radicalization by increasing narcissism (Lub, ). To our knowledge, associations between self‐esteem, narcissism, and violent radicalization have not yet been directly investigated.…”

“…In Europe and elsewhere, a range of programs aimed at preventing radicalization have now been designed and implemented (Bovenkerk, Van Hemert, & Quint, ; Lub, ; see also the Radicalisation Awareness Network, 2014, for an overview). However, studies testing the effectiveness of these programs are rare due to practical constraints or they do not meet scientific standards (Lindekilde, ; Lub, ; Marret, Feddes, Mann, Doosje, & Griffioen‐Young, ; Wijn, ).…”

“…In Europe and elsewhere, a range of programs aimed at preventing radicalization have now been designed and implemented (Bovenkerk, Van Hemert, & Quint, ; Lub, ; see also the Radicalisation Awareness Network, 2014, for an overview). However, studies testing the effectiveness of these programs are rare due to practical constraints or they do not meet scientific standards (Lindekilde, ; Lub, ; Marret, Feddes, Mann, Doosje, & Griffioen‐Young, ; Wijn, ). To increase knowledge about underlying socio‐psychological mechanisms involved in radicalization and to examine effectiveness of counter radicalization programs, it is crucial to conduct effectiveness research, for the sake of both theoretical advancement and practical implications (see also Bovenkerk et al, ; Vermeulen & Bovenkerk, ).…”