Radicalization and Violent Extremism: Lessons Learned From Canada, the U.K. and the U.S.

Project Title

Radicalization and Violent Extremism: Lessons Learned From Canada, the U.K. and the U.S.

Lead / Author

National Institute of Justice

Relevant Dates

Conference held July 28-30, 2015.

Description

This report captures highlights from a major conference hosted by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) of the U.S. Department of Justice, which took place July 28 to July 30, 2015. The event showcased some of the best studies on understanding and addressing violent extremism, supported by research programs in the US, the UK and Canada, including the Kanishka Project.

In addition to highlighting the latest results from scientific studies on radicalization to violent extremism, the conference provided researchers and practitioners with the opportunity to discuss how the findings may be applied in the field and to identify questions and challenges that remain to be addressed. The report distils the dialogue over the three days into three broad theme areas: (1) Processes of radicalization to violent extremism; (2) Factors that may put individuals at risk of radicalization to violent extremism; and (3) Preventing and countering radicalization to violent extremism.

Select Findings

With respect to ‘Processes of radicalization to violent extremism,’ while several models of radicalization processes were considered, researchers tended to focus on evidence about specific facilitators or influences that can propel radicalization to violence. Among the most commonly discussed were the influence of personal connections within an individual’s social network; how identity conflict or confusion can make an individual more open to new ideas, including violent extremism; the role of violent extremist belief systems; connections with violent extremists online; and group dynamics, such as being drawn towards close peers and detaching from previous lives.

Researchers emphasized that the process of radicalization to violent extremism generally involves multiple influences and may vary by individual, group, type of belief system, and context.  Because of this variation, questions remain regarding the best approach for developing models, including whether it would be more helpful to develop (1) high-level models that can be used as guides to help identify specific factors at work in a particular situation, or (2) specific models focused narrowly on types of individuals, groups, belief systems, and contexts. 

On ‘Factors that may put individuals at risk of radicalization to violent extremism,’ participants discussed the importance of better understanding whether certain factors, or combinations of factors, are more relevant at different points in the radicalization process in putting an individual at increased or decreased risk. Several researchers noted that while much of the literature has focused on what increases risk, there is need to combine that emphasis with greater consideration of protective factors. Examples of the latter include self-esteem, strong community ties, a nuanced understanding of ideology and religion, and a diversity of nonviolent outlets for addressing grievances, among others. Also discussed were limits to the evidence base about both risk and protective factors, since much of the research tends to be conducted without comparison or control groups: risk factors are often based on studies of individuals who radicalize to violence, with protective factors based on individuals who did not. More unified studies, examining both risk and protective factors may help improve both the science and the design of promising interventions.

From the practitioners’ perspective, those developing and implementing programs to counter violent extremism expressed the need to better understand the relevant combination of risk and protective factors in a particular context. As well, they wished to better know how to determine whether findings drawn from one context can be applied to another, including to draw from research from other fields, such as on gang activity.

On ‘Preventing and countering radicalization to violent extremism,’ practitioners and researchers presented information on programs that have been developed in the U.K., Canada and the U.S., and discussed some of the challenges and lessons. For example, presenters emphasized that it was important for government agencies to (1) engage with the entire community and not avoid those who disagree with their policies; (2) tailor outreach strategies to different groups in the community; and, (3) take into account the stigma that can result when community members engage with the government. Also discussed was whether programs should be designed specifically to address radicalization to violent extremism or be focused more generally on preventing violence and other problematic behaviors. The attendees agreed that additional research on the applicability of other prevention programs to countering violent extremism (CVE), as well as evaluations of existing and future CVE programs, would be required to answer questions about when what kind of approach to CVE is more effective and appropriate.

Finally, practitioners offered observations on how research can be more useful to those working in the field.  Both government and community practitioners argued that it would be helpful if researchers worked more closely with them. Participants were also concerned that research may not be getting into the hands of those who need it most and in a form that is usable. To this end, the practitioners recommended that findings be presented in new and innovative ways, such as developing synopses and briefing materials that highlight key findings, using case studies and vignettes to illustrate them, and producing videos and podcasts to deliver results in a more user-friendly manner.  Practitioners also asked that researchers provide more concrete recommendations that can be used in the field.

Further Information

Radicalization and Violent Extremism: Lessons Learned From Canada, the U.K. and the U.S.

Related Initiatives

Laura Dawson, Charlie Edwards, and Calum Jeffray, “Learning and Adapting: The Use of Monitoring and Evaluation in Countering Violent Extremism,” RUSI, 2014.

Peter Romaniuk, “Does CVE Work? Lessons learned from the global effort to counter violent extremism,” Global Center on Cooperative Security, 2015.

Rachel Briggs and Sebastien Feve, “Review of Programs to Counter Narratives of Violent Extremism: What Works and What are the Implications for Government?,” Institute for Strategic Dialogue, 2013.

Theme(s)

Keyword(s)

Date modified: