No Cover Image

Journal article 35 views

Evidence and Ideology in the Independent Review of Prevent

Stuart Macdonald Orcid Logo, Andrew Whiting Orcid Logo, Lee Jarvis Orcid Logo

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

Swansea University Author: Stuart Macdonald Orcid Logo

Full text not available from this repository: check for access using links below.

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: 2024
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa66539
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
first_indexed 2024-06-10T10:22:14Z
last_indexed 2024-06-10T10:22:14Z
id cronfa66539
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rfc1807 xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"><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/><journalNumber>39</journalNumber><paginationStart>40</paginationStart><paginationEnd>76</paginationEnd><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/><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>2024-06-28T19:37:23.1697630</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/><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 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 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 COLLEGE NANME Hillary Rodham Clinton Law School COLLEGE CODE HRCL Swansea University Not Required 2024-06-28T19:37:23.1697630 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
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_issue 39
container_start_page 40
publishDate 2024
institution Swansea University
issn 2363-9849
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 0
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 2024-06-28T19:37:21Z
_version_ 1803131123294797824
score 11.012924

Similar Items