Speaker
Description
This paper presents emerging findings from ongoing PhD research examining the effectiveness of the Prevent Strategy in addressing Extreme Right-Wing Terrorism. Drawing on semi-structured interviews, it identifies how Prevent is interpreted in practice, with many practitioners’ prioritising vulnerability, safeguarding and early intervention over a narrow focus on ideology.
Participants consistently emphasised that individuals are often better understood through unmet needs, mental health and social conditions, rather than fixed ideological commitments. In this context, ideology was frequently described as secondary, fluid, or something that “follows” from underlying vulnerabilities. Several practitioners also noted that individuals may move between or combine ideologies, complicating attempts to define cases through a single ideological lens.
Data suggests that, in practice, Prevent is already operating beyond a strictly ideology-based model, including engagement with individuals who do not fit conventional definitions of terrorism. However, this shift raises new challenges. Broadening the scope of Prevent risks overwhelming resource-constrained systems. At the same time, this practice-based approach sits uneasily alongside Prevent’s position within a counter-terrorism framework, where ideology remains central.
This paper argues that this creates a disconnect between policy and practice, requiring practitioners to navigate ongoing ambiguity and raising questions about the coherence and future direction of Prevent.
| Institutional Affiliation | Edge Hill University |
|---|