Abstract
Radicalisation has become a highly influential idea in British policy making. It underpins and justifies Prevent, a core part of the UK's counter-terrorism strategy. Experts have theorised the radicalisation process, often beset by a weak evidence base and mired in fundamental contestation on definitions and explanatory factors. Experiential experts have been active contributors to these debates, presenting a challenge to the low-ranking role often given to experiential knowledge in evidence hierarchies and a contrast to policy areas in which it remains poorly valued. This paper draws on interviews with radicalisation experts to examine the dynamics of this pluralisation in practice. With a focus on credibility contests, it explains how experiential experts can claim authoritative knowledge and the challenges they face from those who prioritise theory-driven empirical data as the basis for contributions to knowledge. The paper draws out the implications for understandings of expertise of this newly conceptualised, evidence poor and highly applied topic area.
Highlights
Prevent has been in place for nearly twenty years and remains a key pillar of the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy (HM Government, 2018)
Experiential experts have been active contributors to these debates, presenting a challenge to the low-ranking role often given to experiential knowledge in evidence hierarchies and a contrast to policy areas in which it remains poorly valued
The data presented in this paper refer to radicalisation expertise during the first decade or so of Prevent, they carry broader meaning; radicalisation expertise presents a strong example of the rise in visibility and influence of experiential knowledge and a set of conditions that facilitate that success
Summary
Prevent has been in place for nearly twenty years and remains a key pillar of the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy (HM Government, 2018). The reach and impact of the concept despite its difficult evidence base raises questions as to the basis on which radicalisation expertise is claimed, attributed and assessed This is a topic area led by a dominant policy narrative that lacks a strong evidence base. While these conditions have shaped the inclusivity and terms of expert debate, there remains diversity among the actors that contribute to knowledge generation and public debate on radicalisation. UK counter-radicalisation policy and the dominant narrative that it promotes are myopic in their focus on the individual and the ideological, the expert community has produced conceptually and theoretically plural accounts and a range of specialist knowledge underpins the topic area. Such comments signal attempts to reify the boundaries of expertise on the topic, and these debates on voice and representation indicate that the political and competitive nature of expertise is brought to the fore in this topic area
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
