Recent literature reviews suggest a maturation of research on terrorism, radicalization and counter-radicalization, with the contours of a cumulative research program emerging with more studies advancing our knowledge empirically and testing aspects of existing theories rather than proposing new ones. At the same time, a review by Schuurman of 3442 articles published in field specific terrorism journals between 2007-2016 shows that only 53% of the articles used some form of primary, empirical data, only 21% used descriptive statistics and only about 7% used inferential statistics. Hardly any studies using experimental designs have been published in the reviewed journals during the investigated period. Thus, the review concludes that inferential statistics and causal-oriented research designs are underdeveloped within terrorism studies.
Building on this, this panel will focus on studying violent radicalization and counter-radicalization using inferential statistics and experimental designs favoring causal analysis. The panel will provide examples of ongoing research, which are based on large-N inferential studies and experimental designs. Papers will provide new empirically-driven insights and discuss the advantages and limitations of employing this sort of research designs in the area of radicalization and counter-radicalization Research.
Chair: Lasse Lindekilde (Aarhus University)
Discussant: Robin Andersson Malmros (Gothenburg University)
Paper presenters:
- David Parker: Understanding Teacher Reporting of Student Vulnerability to Radicalisation
- Sadi Shanaah and Lasse Lindekilde: British Muslims’ collective action against Islamist extremism: The importance of trust levels and action appeals
- Simon Ozer and Preben Bertelsen: A life psychological examination of risk factors for processes of radicalization
- OlufGøtzsche-Astrup: Different effects for different groups? Obstacles and solutions to large-n inferential studies of a small-n phenomenon
Abstracts
Understanding Teacher Reporting of Student Vulnerability to Radicalisation
David Parker, Aarhus University
In a range of countries, structures to identify individuals displaying vulnerability to radicalisation rely, in part, on front-line practitioners to refer cases to the relevant safeguarding board. This is particularly so for teachers (e.g. approximately a third of referrals in the UK come from teachers). Whilst research has provided insight into teacher attitudes towards the Prevent Strategy and Prevent Duty (part of the UK’s wider counter-terrorism strategy), little research has been conducted to understand teacher reporting itself. As such, this paper outlines the results of a survey experiment with over 1,000 teachers in the UK and Denmark. Using three conditions, the survey measures behavioural intentions to a scenario involving a student, reporting attitudes and identifies the types of training received. The data allows the use of descriptive statistics and causal inference to help us better understand the threshold for teacher reporting (i.e. the when), the reporting mechanisms used (i.e. the how) and the barriers and drivers of reporting (i.e. the why). This data will add to the academic literature on teacher reporting as well as having significant policy relevance for a range of states delivering radicalisation prevention strategies.
British Muslims’ collective action against Islamist extremism: The importance of trust levels and action appeals
Sadi Shanaah and Lasse Lindekilde, Aarhus University
The research on social movements and collective action has been surprisingly silent regarding the effect of the identity of mobilizer on the success or failure of mobilization. In this article, we provide a first empirical test of the assumption that the identity of the actor putting out an action appeal matters to the success of the mobilization. We investigate under what circumstances British Muslims are more willing to stand up against Islamist extremism and take part in collective action against it. We do this via a survey experiment fielded to 825 British Muslims, which makes it possible to compare the mobilization outcome following an appeal by the government, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) or nobody in particular (control condition) at different levels of trust in these bodies. We argue that trust in government and Muslim authorities is key to understanding Muslim collective action against Islamist extremism in the UK; the higher trust levels, the higher the willingness to engage in collective action. Our results show that British Muslims distinguished by their level of trust in the government and the MCB react differently to action appeals coming from these actors respectively.
A life psychological examination of risk factors for processes of radicalization
Simon Ozer & Preben Bertelsen, Aarhus University
The theory of Life Psychology is a general psychological model developed to explicate the interplay among a secure life attachment, life skills, and a reasonable grip on life in regard to psychological well-being and involvement in one’s personal and common life. This theory explains violent radicalization in relation to an insecure or disturbed life attachment dealt with by deficient and/or disturbed life skills. Our project includes two phases. (1) Operationalization of the radicalization model`s assessment scales to identify the fundamental risk factors regarding insecure life attachment, deficient/disturbed life skills, and violent extremism. These scales have been validated in a large-N survey across Denmark and USA and have proven to be psychometrically sound. (2) Examination of the assumption that insecure life attachment is a root factor leading to violent extremism, which is further moderated by deficient/disturbed life skills. This assumption was examined in a large-N study among high school students in Australia, Denmark, England, USA, and Canada. The results support the life psychological theory and recommend early preventive interventions addressing deficient and disturbed life attachment and life skills.
Different effects for different groups? Obstacles and solutions to large-n inferential studies of a small-n phenomenon
Oluf Gøtzsche-Astrup, Aarhus University
Despite repeated calls for experimental research into the mechanisms of extremism and counter-radicalization, studies employing methods that allow for causal inference are only just beginning to be published in academic journals. This paper seeks to collect and address the main obstacles to conducting such research, and to provide concrete solutions and strategies for how researchers can overcome them. Many of these obstacles are related to the fundamental problem of studying the small-n phenomenon of extremism using inferential methods that require large-n designs. How do we measure radicalization in non-radicalized populations? How do we study questions of ideology and issue specificity across groups? How can we elicit truthful responses to sensitive questions? The solutions to these obstacles, I argue, lie in discerning the universal elements of ideology and contentious issues, in using list experimental methods, behavioral intentions, and previous behavior on the borderline between activism and radicalism to tease out the mechanisms of violent extremism. Furthermore, taking into account individual differences in personality and information processing enables better estimation of the processes leading to extremism. These obstacles and solutions are illustrated using data from several large-n survey experiments in the US and Denmark.