Applying the study of religions in the security domain: knowledge, skills, and collaboration

Kim Knott

doi:10.1080/20566093.2018.1525901

Abstract

Since the 1990s, scholars of religion on both sides of the Atlantic have been drawn into engagement with law enforcement agencies and security policymakers and practitioners, particularly for their expertise on new religious movements and Islam. Whilst enabling researchers to contribute to real world challenges, this relationship has had its frustrations and difficulties, as well as its benefits and opportunities. Drawing on examples from the UK, Canada and the US, I set out the relationship between religion and the contemporary security landscape before discussing some of the key issues arising in security research partnerships. I then turn to the question of knowledge exchange and translation in the study of religions, developing the distinction between ‘know what’ (knowledge about religions and being religiously literate), ‘know why’ (explaining religions and making the link to security threats) and ‘know how’ (researcher expertise and skills in engagement with practitioners).

Highlights

It was the standoff at Waco, Texas in 1993 that brought about a change in the relationship between security agencies and scholars of religion
As a subsequent US Department of Justice investigation noted, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) consulted advisors, they made no use of religion scholars who had studied the movement in question
FBI representatives began to attend meetings of the American Academy of Religion, and scholars were invited to the FBI Academy at Quantico (Kaplan 2002a; Barkun 2002)

Summary

Introduction

It was the standoff at Waco, Texas in 1993 that brought about a change in the relationship between security agencies and scholars of religion. In what follows I draw on examples from these initiatives – and the case of NRMS and law enforcement discussed earlier – to consider how the study of religions has been applied in the context of security policy and practice.

Results

Conclusion