Citation

Stephens W, Sieckelinck S. Int. J. Law Crime Justice 2021; 66: e100486.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2021, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.ijlcj.2021.100486

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

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.

Language: en

Keywords

Collaboration; P/CVE; Q-methodology; Radicalization; Resilience