TY - JOUR
T1 - Resiliences to radicalization
T2 - four key perspectives
AU - Stephens, William
AU - Sieckelinck, Stijn
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport [Grant number: 326434 ].
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Author(s)
Copyright:
Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/9
Y1 - 2021/9
N2 - Building resilience to radicalization has become a key pillar of many policies for preventing violent extremism. However, sustained debates over the precise nature of the terms radicalisation and resilience impact the ability to implement these policies. A growing body of literature argues that the way in which key ideas are understood matters to what happens in practice. Additionally, the cross-sector collaboration called for in PVE policy can be made more challenging through divergences in understanding of central concepts. As such, the way in which resilience to radicalization is being understood by frontline workers matters. In light of this, a q-methodology study was conducted, which identified four perspectives on resilience to radicalization amongst policy-makers and practitioners in Belgium, the Netherlands, and the UK. These perspectives are examined in light of the broader debates around both resilience and radicalization, and the extent to which the divergences matter for collaboration is considered.
AB - Building resilience to radicalization has become a key pillar of many policies for preventing violent extremism. However, sustained debates over the precise nature of the terms radicalisation and resilience impact the ability to implement these policies. A growing body of literature argues that the way in which key ideas are understood matters to what happens in practice. Additionally, the cross-sector collaboration called for in PVE policy can be made more challenging through divergences in understanding of central concepts. As such, the way in which resilience to radicalization is being understood by frontline workers matters. In light of this, a q-methodology study was conducted, which identified four perspectives on resilience to radicalization amongst policy-makers and practitioners in Belgium, the Netherlands, and the UK. These perspectives are examined in light of the broader debates around both resilience and radicalization, and the extent to which the divergences matter for collaboration is considered.
KW - Collaboration
KW - P/CVE
KW - Q-methodology
KW - Radicalization
KW - Resilience
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85107658786&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijlcj.2021.100486
DO - 10.1016/j.ijlcj.2021.100486
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85107658786
SN - 1756-0616
VL - 66
JO - International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice
JF - International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice
M1 - 100486
ER -