By Anthony Morgan,  Timothy Cubitt,  Isabella Voce

• Using data from a large national survey of online Australians, we examined the presence of risk and protective factors for cognitive and behavioural radicalisation among individuals who participated in an anti-authority protest since early 2020.

• Anti-authority protesters exhibited more risk factors and fewer protective factors for cognitive and behavioural radicalisation than other respondents, including people who had protested in support of other issues or movements. They were also more likely to justify violence in support of their cause and willing to support or participate in violent or unlawful behaviour on behalf of their group.

• These findings show that people who participated in anti-authority protests were more vulnerable to radicalisation compared with other protestors and non-protestors. The results have implications for responding to protest movements that promote anti-government sentiment, that spread disinformation and that are exploited by malicious actors.

• AIC Research Report 31

Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2024. 62p.

By Heather Wolbers, Christopher Dowling, Timothy Cubitt and Chante Kuhn

This paper reviews available research on how the internet facilitates radicalisation and measures to prevent it. It briefly canvasses evidence on the extent to which the internet contributes to radicalisation broadly, and who is most susceptible to its influence, before delving further into the mechanisms underpinning the relationship between the internet and violent extremism.

High-level approaches to combating internet-facilitated radicalisation, including content removal, account suspensions, reducing anonymity, and counternarrative and education campaigns, are mapped against these mechanisms. This illustrates how these approaches can disrupt radicalisation and assists researchers, policymakers and practitioners to identify potential gaps in existing counterterrorism and countering violent extremism regimes. Research on the implementation and outcomes of these approaches is also summarised.

Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 673.  Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. 2023. 17p.

By Lorraine Mazerolle,Adrian Cherney,Elizabeth Eggins,Lorelei Hine and Angela Higginson

Multiagency responses to reduce radicalisation often involve colla-borations between police, government, nongovernment, business and/or community organisations. The complexities of radicalisation suggest it is impossible for any single agency to address the problem alone. Police‐involved multiagency partner-ships may disrupt pathways from radicalisation to violence by addressing multiple risk factors in a coordinated manner.Objectives:1. Synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of police‐involved multiagency interventions on radicalisation or multiagency collaboration. Qualitatively synthesise information abouthowthe intervention works (me-chanisms), interventioncontext(moderators), implementation factors and eco-nomic considerations.Search Methods:Terrorism‐related terms were used to search the Global PolicingDatabase, terrorism/counterterrorism websites and repositories, and relevantjournals for published and unpublished evaluations conducted 2002–2018. Thesearch was conducted November 2019. Expert consultation, reference harvestingand forward citation searching was conducted November 2020.Selection Criteria:Eligible studies needed to report an intervention where policepartnered with at least one other agency and explicitly aimed to address terrorism,violent extremism or radicalisation. Objective 1 eligible outcomes included violentextremism, radicalisation and/or terrorism, and multiagency collaboration. Only impact evaluations using experimental or robust quasi‐experimental designs were eligible. Objective 2 placed no limits on outcomes. Studies needed to report anempirical assessment of an eligible intervention and provide data on mechanisms,moderators, implementation or economic considerations.Data Collection and Analysis:The search identified 7384 records. Systematic screening-identified 181 studies, of which five were eligible for Objective 1 and 26 for Objective 2.

Oslo, Norway: Campbell Collaborative, 2021. 88p.

By Arbet Fetiu and Pablo Madriaza

For the purposes of this study, we adopted the following working definition of "radicalization leading to violence": [translation] "the process whereby an individual or group adopts a violent form of action, directly related to a politically, socially or religiously motivated extremist ideology that challenges the established political, social or cultural order" (Khosrokhavar, 2014, pp. 8-9). Although this definition guided our research, it was merely a working definition; a systematic review requires the inclusion of numerous viewpoints and specific definitions used by the different researchers.

International Centre for the Prevention of Crime. Montreal. Quebec. 2015. 147p.

By Tore Bjørgo and Ingvild Magnæs Gjelsvik.

This report provides an overview of Norwegian research on radicalisation and violent extremism, with an emphasis on knowledge about processes leading towards radicalization, extremism and terrorism, and how such processes can be prevented and countered. The main objective has been to identify the studies which can provide the most relevant knowledge to those whose task it is to prevent radicalization and violent extremism. This summary will address research on right-wing extremism, left-wing extremism, militant Islamism and foreign fighters, and terrorism more in general. The report will also provide a brief overview of relevant research in Denmark and Sweden as well as pointing out some of the leading European centers of research in this field. A main purpose for this overview of research is to identify holes of knowledge – areas and topics where research-based knowledge is lacking or is outdated, and where there is a need for new research. PHS Forskning 2015: 2 (This is an abridged edition, translated into English)

Oslo: Center for Research on Extremism, The Extreme Right, Hate Crime and Political Violence, University of Oslo, 2015. 25p.40p.

By Yngve Carlsson

This paper discusses the role of the Norwegian municipalities in coping with Islamic extremism – compared to how they handled right wing extremism 15-20 years ago. The main questions are: What do the municipalities actually do to prevent radicalization into militant extreme Islam? What is it reasonable to expect that the municipalities can do to prevent such activity? Such questions are highly relevant given the central position of the municipalities in the Nordic welfare states as a provider of many of the welfare services1 , and the role they play in developing vital, attractive and safe communities. It is not surprising that local authorities are expected to deal with this issue. The main argument in this paper is that preventing radicalization into Islamic extremism, dismantling groups and reintegrating individual extremists into the local community through local action, is a far more complex and difficult process compared to how right-wing extremism was handled 15-20 years ago when such groups were active in some Norwegian local communities. It is the intention of this paper to show the complexity of this issue and present some of the challenges and dilemmas that the municipalities have to face. Unless this complexity is understood, it may be difficult to find strategies and measures that can reduce the problem. It is unrealistic to believe that this problem can be completely prevented – at least by actors at the local community level.

Oslo: Center for Research on Extremism, The Extreme Right, Hate Crime and Political Violence, University of Oslo