Evidence and Ideology in the Independent Review of Prevent

Macdonald, Stuart; Whiting, Andrew; Jarvis, Lee

doi:https://doi.org/

Journal article 332 views 43 downloads

Evidence and Ideology in the Independent Review of Prevent

Stuart Macdonald

, Andrew Whiting

, Lee Jarvis

Journal for Deradicalization, Volume: 39, Pages: 40 - 76

Swansea University Author: Stuart Macdonald

PDF | Version of Record

Distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution, NonCommercial-No Derivatives Licence (CC-BY-NC-ND).
Download (523.88KB)

Check full text

Abstract

A key part of the United Kingdom’s counter-terrorism framework, the Prevent Strategy is designed to operate ‘upstream’ to stop people becoming or supporting terrorists. In February 2023 the long-awaited independent review of Prevent reported, evaluating the Strategy against its core objectives. Led...

Full description

Published in:	Journal for Deradicalization
ISSN:	2363-9849
Published:	Simon Fraser University, Canada 2024
Online Access:	Check full text
URI:	https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa66539

first_indexed	2024-06-10T10:22:14Z
last_indexed	2024-11-25T14:18:22Z
id	cronfa66539
recordtype	SURis
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2024-07-15T16:41:04.1899509</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>66539</id><entry>2024-05-30</entry><title>Evidence and Ideology in the Independent Review of Prevent</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>933e714a4cc37c3ac12d4edc277f8f98</sid><ORCID>0000-0002-7483-9023</ORCID><firstname>Stuart</firstname><surname>Macdonald</surname><name>Stuart Macdonald</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2024-05-30</date><deptcode>HRCL</deptcode><abstract>A key part of the United Kingdom’s counter-terrorism framework, the Prevent Strategy is designed to operate ‘upstream’ to stop people becoming or supporting terrorists. In February 2023 the long-awaited independent review of Prevent reported, evaluating the Strategy against its core objectives. Led by Sir William Shawcross, the report claimed that Prevent’s overarching rationale remains good because the UK continues to face a genuine terrorist threat, but lamented its diversion toward safeguarding and its downplaying of Islamist extremism as the purportedly most pressing source of radicalisation within the UK today. To declare the reception to Shawcross’ report mixed would be generous, with some observers even demanding that the Government withdraw the review. We share many concerns raised by civil society groups and practitioners, and in this piece argue that the Review is fundamentally flawed because of its partial – in the sense of both limited and biased – engagement with the relevant (and extensive) knowledge base that exists around radicalisation, counter radicalisation, and Prevent. More specifically – and with particular attention to the report’s emphasis on ‘ideology’ – we show: (i) that the report suffers from a selective, and problematic, engagement with relevant academic research that poorly represents established knowledge in this area; (ii) that this selective engagement leads to a questionable, and highly contestable, conceptual framing of the report’s core terms and parameters; and, (iii) that this contestable framing has implications for operationalisation of the report’s findings. In doing this, the article makes three core contributions in (i) situating the Shawcross review in relevant historical and policy contexts; (ii) offering original analytical critique of the review’s methodological and political assumptions and findings; and, (iii) extending research on the mechanisms of counter-terrorism review via this new – and underexplored – case study.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>Journal for Deradicalization</journal><volume>39</volume><journalNumber/><paginationStart>40</paginationStart><paginationEnd>76</paginationEnd><publisher>Simon Fraser University, Canada</publisher><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint/><issnElectronic>2363-9849</issnElectronic><keywords>counter-terrorism, counter-radicalisation, Prevent Strategy, independent review, ideology</keywords><publishedDay>28</publishedDay><publishedMonth>6</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2024</publishedYear><publishedDate>2024-06-28</publishedDate><doi/><url>https://journals.sfu.ca/jd/index.php/jd/article/view/907</url><notes>Citation: Macdonald, S., Whiting, A., & Jarvis, L. (2024). Evidence and Ideology in the Independent Review of Prevent. Journal for Deradicalization, 39, 40-76. https://journals.sfu.ca/jd/index.php/jd/article/view/907/471</notes><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Hillary Rodham Clinton Law School</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>HRCL</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm>Not Required</apcterm><funders/><projectreference/><lastEdited>2024-07-15T16:41:04.1899509</lastEdited><Created>2024-05-30T08:21:24.0580763</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences</level><level id="2">Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Stuart</firstname><surname>Macdonald</surname><orcid>0000-0002-7483-9023</orcid><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Andrew</firstname><surname>Whiting</surname><orcid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6821-5919</orcid><order>2</order></author><author><firstname>Lee</firstname><surname>Jarvis</surname><orcid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4149-7135</orcid><order>3</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>66539__30907__96964ad3635142d9913ffa8f09f7b0ee.pdf</filename><originalFilename>66539.VOR.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2024-07-15T16:31:56.0093802</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>536448</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>Version of Record</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><documentNotes>Distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution, NonCommercial-No Derivatives Licence (CC-BY-NC-ND).</documentNotes><copyrightCorrect>true</copyrightCorrect><language>eng</language><licence>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/</licence></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling	2024-07-15T16:41:04.1899509 v2 66539 2024-05-30 Evidence and Ideology in the Independent Review of Prevent 933e714a4cc37c3ac12d4edc277f8f98 0000-0002-7483-9023 Stuart Macdonald Stuart Macdonald true false 2024-05-30 HRCL A key part of the United Kingdom’s counter-terrorism framework, the Prevent Strategy is designed to operate ‘upstream’ to stop people becoming or supporting terrorists. In February 2023 the long-awaited independent review of Prevent reported, evaluating the Strategy against its core objectives. Led by Sir William Shawcross, the report claimed that Prevent’s overarching rationale remains good because the UK continues to face a genuine terrorist threat, but lamented its diversion toward safeguarding and its downplaying of Islamist extremism as the purportedly most pressing source of radicalisation within the UK today. To declare the reception to Shawcross’ report mixed would be generous, with some observers even demanding that the Government withdraw the review. We share many concerns raised by civil society groups and practitioners, and in this piece argue that the Review is fundamentally flawed because of its partial – in the sense of both limited and biased – engagement with the relevant (and extensive) knowledge base that exists around radicalisation, counter radicalisation, and Prevent. More specifically – and with particular attention to the report’s emphasis on ‘ideology’ – we show: (i) that the report suffers from a selective, and problematic, engagement with relevant academic research that poorly represents established knowledge in this area; (ii) that this selective engagement leads to a questionable, and highly contestable, conceptual framing of the report’s core terms and parameters; and, (iii) that this contestable framing has implications for operationalisation of the report’s findings. In doing this, the article makes three core contributions in (i) situating the Shawcross review in relevant historical and policy contexts; (ii) offering original analytical critique of the review’s methodological and political assumptions and findings; and, (iii) extending research on the mechanisms of counter-terrorism review via this new – and underexplored – case study. Journal Article Journal for Deradicalization 39 40 76 Simon Fraser University, Canada 2363-9849 counter-terrorism, counter-radicalisation, Prevent Strategy, independent review, ideology 28 6 2024 2024-06-28 https://journals.sfu.ca/jd/index.php/jd/article/view/907 Citation: Macdonald, S., Whiting, A., & Jarvis, L. (2024). Evidence and Ideology in the Independent Review of Prevent. Journal for Deradicalization, 39, 40-76. https://journals.sfu.ca/jd/index.php/jd/article/view/907/471 COLLEGE NANME Hillary Rodham Clinton Law School COLLEGE CODE HRCL Swansea University Not Required 2024-07-15T16:41:04.1899509 2024-05-30T08:21:24.0580763 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law Stuart Macdonald 0000-0002-7483-9023 1 Andrew Whiting https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6821-5919 2 Lee Jarvis https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4149-7135 3 66539__30907__96964ad3635142d9913ffa8f09f7b0ee.pdf 66539.VOR.pdf 2024-07-15T16:31:56.0093802 Output 536448 application/pdf Version of Record true Distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution, NonCommercial-No Derivatives Licence (CC-BY-NC-ND). true eng http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
title	Evidence and Ideology in the Independent Review of Prevent
spellingShingle	Evidence and Ideology in the Independent Review of Prevent Stuart Macdonald
title_short	Evidence and Ideology in the Independent Review of Prevent
title_full	Evidence and Ideology in the Independent Review of Prevent
title_fullStr	Evidence and Ideology in the Independent Review of Prevent
title_full_unstemmed	Evidence and Ideology in the Independent Review of Prevent
title_sort	Evidence and Ideology in the Independent Review of Prevent
author_id_str_mv	933e714a4cc37c3ac12d4edc277f8f98
author_id_fullname_str_mv	933e714a4cc37c3ac12d4edc277f8f98_***_Stuart Macdonald
author	Stuart Macdonald
author2	Stuart Macdonald Andrew Whiting Lee Jarvis
format	Journal article
container_title	Journal for Deradicalization
container_volume	39
container_start_page	40
publishDate	2024
institution	Swansea University
issn	2363-9849
publisher	Simon Fraser University, Canada
college_str	Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id	facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_top_title	Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id	facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_parent_title	Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
department_str	Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences{{{_:::_}}}Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law
url	https://journals.sfu.ca/jd/index.php/jd/article/view/907
document_store_str	1
active_str	0
description	A key part of the United Kingdom’s counter-terrorism framework, the Prevent Strategy is designed to operate ‘upstream’ to stop people becoming or supporting terrorists. In February 2023 the long-awaited independent review of Prevent reported, evaluating the Strategy against its core objectives. Led by Sir William Shawcross, the report claimed that Prevent’s overarching rationale remains good because the UK continues to face a genuine terrorist threat, but lamented its diversion toward safeguarding and its downplaying of Islamist extremism as the purportedly most pressing source of radicalisation within the UK today. To declare the reception to Shawcross’ report mixed would be generous, with some observers even demanding that the Government withdraw the review. We share many concerns raised by civil society groups and practitioners, and in this piece argue that the Review is fundamentally flawed because of its partial – in the sense of both limited and biased – engagement with the relevant (and extensive) knowledge base that exists around radicalisation, counter radicalisation, and Prevent. More specifically – and with particular attention to the report’s emphasis on ‘ideology’ – we show: (i) that the report suffers from a selective, and problematic, engagement with relevant academic research that poorly represents established knowledge in this area; (ii) that this selective engagement leads to a questionable, and highly contestable, conceptual framing of the report’s core terms and parameters; and, (iii) that this contestable framing has implications for operationalisation of the report’s findings. In doing this, the article makes three core contributions in (i) situating the Shawcross review in relevant historical and policy contexts; (ii) offering original analytical critique of the review’s methodological and political assumptions and findings; and, (iii) extending research on the mechanisms of counter-terrorism review via this new – and underexplored – case study.
published_date	2024-06-28T02:48:58Z
_version_	1821372043910709248
score	11.04748

Evidence and Ideology in the Independent Review of Prevent

Similar Items