Open Access Publisher and Free Library
10-social sciences.jpg

SOCIAL SCIENCES

Social sciences examine human behavior, social structures, and interactions in various settings. Fields such as sociology, psychology, anthropology, and economics study social relationships, cultural norms, and institutions. By using different research methods, social scientists seek to understand community dynamics, the effects of policies, and factors driving social change. This field is important for tackling current issues, guiding public discussions, and developing strategies for social progress and innovation.

Posts tagged countering violent extremism
A systematic review on the outcomes of primary and secondary prevention programs in the field of violent radicalization. 

By Ghayda Hassan 1 Sébastien Brouillette-Alarie 1 Sarah Ousman 1 Deniz Kilinc 1 Éléa Laetitia Savard 1 Wynnpaul Varela 1 Lysiane Lavoie 1 Arber Fetiu 1

  Over the past two decades, planned and executed attacks attributed to extremist movements or “lone actors” have intensified and spread throughout many parts of the world, amplifying the fears of local populations and prompting a number of governments to invest significant sums of money into preventing violent radicalization and extremism  Despite these investments, current knowledge regarding best practices for prevention remains disparate, and the effectiveness of current practices has not yet been clearly established. This means that trillions of dollars are currently being spent funding programs whose effectiveness and potential side effects are unknown. Considering the above, the Canadian Practitioners Network for Prevention of Radicalization and Extremist Violence (CPNPREV; https://cpnprev.ca/) has conducted a systematic review on the effectiveness of primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention programs in the field of preventing violent extremism (PVE). The goals of this review were threefold: 1) to determine if primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention programs are able to counter violent radicalization; 2) to identify specific program modalities associated with a higher chance of success or failure for the targeted populations; and 3) to assess the quality of the literature in order to identify less reliable evidence, knowledge gaps, and studies which should be given more weight in the interpretation of results The review integrated evidence on the following: a) religiously-inspired (e.g., Islamist), right-wing, extreme-left, and “singleissue” (e.g., misogyny) violent radicalization; b) outcomes classified by prevention levels; and c) benefits/harms, costs, transferability, and community-related implementation issues when mentioned by the authors. We used systematic review methods developed by the Campbell and Cochrane collaborations. The logic model driving the review is grounded in an ecosystemic public health model, dividing programs into primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention levels. Because the outcomes of primary/secondary PVE programs and those of tertiary prevention programs were very disparate, we decided to treat results of primary/secondary prevention programs separately from those of tertiary prevention programs. However, we used a common method for both reviews. Of the 11,836 studies generated from the searches undertaken (up to June 2019), only 56 were found to be eligible for this review (i.e., they included an empirical—quantitative or qualitative—evaluation of a primary or secondary prevention initiative using primary data). Among these, 23 were found to be of insufficient methodological quality (score of 3/10 or less on the Quality of Study Assessment tool) and were therefore excluded The final set of studies comprised 33 evaluations of primary or secondary prevention programs. They reached a total sample of 6,520 individuals from 15 countries, with sample sizes ranging from 5 to 1,446 participants (M = 210.32, SD = 396.0). Most of the identified studies (k = 24) evaluated programs targeting violent Islamist radicalization. Nine studies assessed the outcomes of “general” prevention programs, that is, programs that do not target a specific type of violent radicalization but rather aim to improve openness towards others, respect, civic education, etc., within both “vulnerable” individuals and the general population. Only one study assessed programs targeting violent far-right radicalization, and none targeted far-left or single-issue violent radicalization. Among the 33 program evaluation studies, 18 reported mostly positive outcomes, seven reported mixed outcomes (both positive and negative), and eight reported mostly negative outcomes. Of note, all negative assessments were related to initiatives under Prevent, the UK’s national PVE strategy. On average, primary and secondary prevention programs seemed more effective than targeted primary prevention programs. However, this result is inevitably linked to the multiple negative assessments of Prevent, a strategy encompassing multiple targeted primary prevention programs.  

Montreal::Canadian Practitioners Network for the Prevention of Radicalization and Extremist Violence., 

2021. 152p.

Young People and Violent Extremism

By The Australian Federal Police, Australian Security Intelligence Organisation

A jointly authored analysis of youth radicalisation by the Five Eyes security and law enforcement agencies – the first time they have collaborated on a public paper. The analysis identifies common issues and trends contributing to youth radicalisation and includes case studies from all of the Five Eyes countries: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. The paper calls for a whole-of-society response across the nations to help identify and deal with the radicalisation of minors – especially online.

The case studies highlight the challenges of minors in counter-terrorism. Minors can pose the same credible terrorist threat as adults, with some minors attracted to violent extremist content and ideologies – especially online. Law enforcement and security agencies intervene when there is a potential threat to public safety, but these disruptions are not the only response to this issue. Several of the case studies demonstrate that diversion and countering violent extremism programs can make a difference.

There is a role to play for law enforcement, security and government agencies, the education sector, mental health and social well-being services, communities and technology companies. The analysis informs the Australian Government’s upcoming counter-terrorism and violent extremism strategy.

Key issues

Minors are ‘digital natives’ – they have grown up online and are technologically savvy. Minors often use multiple platforms and applications for different purposes.

The online environment allows minors to interact with adults and other minors, allowing them to view and distribute violent extremist content which further radicalises themselves and others. Online environments, particularly encrypted ones, provide a large degree of anonymity.

Engaging with minors is more complex than engaging with adults. The unique characteristics of adolescent development require agencies to factor in additional considerations when dealing with minors. Determining intent can be harder for minors than adults, especially for minors who spend a lot of time online.

A renewed whole-of-society approach is required to address the issue of minors radicalising to violent extremism. This is not something governments or communities can address in isolation. Mental health, community initiatives, social services, and education interventions can help to counter radicalisation before security and policing responses are required.

The ways in which vulnerability factors (not limited to mental health or neurodiversity characteristics) impact minors’ radicalisation to violent extremism is challenging.

Five Eyes Insights, 2024. 8p