With initiatives aimed at countering extremism, their organization and structure exhibit notable differences across nations. This diversity is already evident in Europe, where various countries adopted either rather centralized models with one main actor, such as the United Kingdom and France, or decentralized approaches, as seen in Sweden, Denmark, and Norway (Koehler, 2021). Such variance extends to the involvement of state and civil society actors, as well as the modes of cooperation among affiliated institutions and organizations. In combining rather security-oriented state actors and non-security actors within civil society, prevention has often been regarded to be hybrid in nature. In ultimately working towards a common goal, the diversity of actors, programs, and approaches provides an opportunity to respond to different target groups or specific contexts. At the same time, potential conflicts between the actors may arise on the basis of diverging standards in training or funding as well as different understandings and practices among the professional fields (Sivenbring & Malmros, 2021; Walkenhorst & Ruf, 2018). In addressing the potential tensions, projects like icommit aim to support local collaborations. Nevertheless, the question remains as to how the associated objectives and approaches are ultimately negotiated and implemented in practice. This topic requires further empirical research, which will be taken up within the VORTEX network.
When distinguishing between the approaches of societal security and non-security actors in preventing and countering violent extremism (P/CVE) the terms ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ are often used (Hardy, 2023). So-called soft approaches adhering to civil society organizations conducting largely pedagogical measures compliment hard ones, which encompass legal prosecution and incarceration (Aly et al., 2015). However, the distinction between these approaches is often blurred in practice. Security and non-security approaches to radicalization and extremism often not only coexist, but also intersect to different extents in multi-agency settings (Malmros & Sivenbring, 2023; Ragazzi & de Jongh, 2019). Such temporary or permanent cooperation often involves police officers, social workers and teachers among others allowing “knowledge, information or operational space” to be combined (Haugstvedt & Tuastad, 2023; Sivenbring & Malmros, 2019). Thus, prevention efforts provide a hybrid field that is characterized by distinct but often overlapping responsibilities, objectives and methods (Baaken et al., 2018; Blomgren & Waks, 2015; Gøtzsche-Astrup et al., 2023; Sivenbring & Malmros, 2021).
With this approach, bridges can be built between those differences. It “appears to be a key in pushing forward innovations and securing the most adaptable network for reaching the largest possible target group” (Koehler, 2021, p. 74). As radicalization processes can be very diverse and dynamic, key figures in prevention work can vary over time (Young et al., 2015). Teachers, for example, spend a lot of time with children and adolescents and may notice signs of socio-psychological deviations. However, when it comes to averting criminal incidents of students, taking the police on board becomes a relevant issue. Thereby, it “has increasingly been considered a promising approach to enable the early and effective identification of individuals and communities that are at risk of radicalization and violent extremism” (Hardyns et al., 2022, p. 5). Allowing such overlaps in P/CVE provides the possibility to flexibly adapt to current situations and specific contexts and has become a generally accepted practice in many countries (Haugstvedt & Tuastad, 2023; Koehler, 2021).
However, there are also challenges that come with this diversity of programs and actors among which are: unequal standards regarding training and financial funding for governmental compared to non-governmental actors, evaluation of preventive effects, and the combination of “values and practices associated with multiple distinct field- or societal-level logics” inherent to hybridity (Battilana et al., 2017, p. 137; s. also Koehler, 2021). In general, police and security services are rather concerned with the security and safety of citizens and public facilities and rely on repressive measures. Whereas non-societal security actors like teachers, social or youth workers focus on the well-being of individuals or groups that practitioners work with and intends to support, help or emancipate. Thus, when those distinct approaches overlap, practitioners might encounter ambivalences and contradictions regarding their role and self-understanding in the programs they are involved in (Pache & Santos, 2013). Besides, it has often been feared that the security approach will dominate pedagogical work and make use of and potentially impede the relationships of trust between civil society organizations and the broader society (Haugstvedt & Tuastad, 2023).
Although these logics appear quite two-pronged and static, logics might co-exist, mix or compete with each other, especially in these hybrid prevention contexts (Sivenbring & Malmros, 2019). However, in mapping the prevention perspectives of the different professional groups in the individual countries on a single continuum, the two logics were conceived as contradictory (Gøtzsche-Astrup et al., 2023). While this conceptualization allows for an overview on how the logics are regarded on average within different professional fields, it does not reveal in which specific ways they might mix or compete and how they are implemented in turn on the ground. An approach to support practitioners has been developed by icommit, for example, to improve local cooperation and case analyses from a social work perspective. Recommendations include among others to strengthen the ability to switch perspectives, to integrate the diverging logics and to reflect on different approaches to P/CVE (Harris et al., 2023). What still requires further investigation is how logics might be integrated and consequently guide management and implementation of prevention in hybrid settings, offering further insights into and for prevention practice. These open questions are frequently discussed within the Research Area C of VORTEX (Countering Radicalisation). Also, my own dissertation on overlaps of prevention approaches aims to contribute to the understanding of practitioners’ negotiation of P/CVE logics.
Sources
Aly, A., Balbi, A.-M., & Jacques, C. (2015). Rethinking countering violent extremism: Implementing the role of civil society. Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, 10(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/18335330.2015.1028772
Baaken, T., Becker, R., Bjørgo, T., Kiefer, M., Korn, J., Mücke, T., Ruf, M., & Walkenhorst, D. (with Hessische Stiftung Friedens- und Konfliktforschung). (2018). Herausforderung Deradikalisierung: Einsichten aus Wissenschaft und Praxis. Leibniz-Institut Hessische Stiftung Friedens- und Konfliktforschung (HSFK).
Battilana, J., Besharov, M., & Mitzinneck, B. (2017). On hybrids and hybrid organizing: A review and roadmap for future research. The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 2, 128–162.
Blomgren, M., & Waks, C. (2015). Coping with contradictions: Hybrid professionals managing institutional complexity. Journal of Professions and Organization, 2(1), 78–102. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/jou010
Gøtzsche-Astrup, O., Lindekilde, L., Maria Fjellman, A., Bjørgo, T., Solhjell, R., Haugstvedt, H., Sivenbring, J., Andersson Malmros, R., Kangasniemi, M., Moilanen, T., Magnæs, I., Wilchen Christensen, T., & Mattsson, C. (2023). Trust in interagency collaboration: The role of institutional logics and hybrid professionals. Journal of Professions and Organization, 10(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joac022
Hardy, K. (2023). Rethinking CVE and public health prevention. In J. Busher, L. Malkki, & S. Marsden, The Routledge Handbook on Radicalisation and Countering Radicalisation (1st ed., pp. 355–368). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003035848-27
Hardyns, W., Klima, N., & Pauwels, L. (Eds.). (2022). Evaluation and mentoring of the multi-agency approach to violent radicalisation in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. Maklu.
Harris, G., Korn, A., Ohlenforst, V., Scheuble, S., Selby, A., & White, J. (2023). Walk A Mile—A practice-rooted guide to P/CVE collaboration & casework. https://multiagencycooperation.eu/wp-content/uploads/icommit-final-publication-en.pdf
Haugstvedt, H., & Tuastad, S. E. (2023). “It Gets a Bit Messy”: Norwegian Social Workers’ Perspectives on Collaboration with Police and Security Service on Cases of Radicalisation and Violent Extremism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 35(3), 677–693. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2021.1970541
Koehler, D. (2021). Deradicalisation in Germany: Preventing and countering violent extremism. Revista CIDOB d’Afers Internacionals, 128, 59–79. https://doi.org/10.24241/rcai.2021.128.2.59
Malmros, R. A., & Sivenbring, J. (2023). Multi-agency approaches to countering radicalisation. In J. Busher, L. Malkki, & S. Marsden, The Routledge Handbook on Radicalisation and Countering Radicalisation (1st ed., pp. 369–383). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003035848-28
Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2013). Embedded in Hybrid Contexts: How Individuals in Organizations Respond to Competing Institutional Logics. In M. Lounsbury & E. Boxenbaum (Eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations(pp. 3–35). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X(2013)0039b014
Ragazzi, F., & de Jongh, L.-A. (2019). COUNTERING RADICALIZATION: HIJACKING TRUST? DILEMMAS OF STREET-LEVEL BUREAUCRATS IN THE NETHERLANDS. In RADICALIZATION IN BELGIUM AND THE NETHERLANDS – CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON VIOLENCE AND SECURITY (pp. 147–167). I.B. Tauris.
Sivenbring, J., & Malmros, R. A. (2019). Mixing Logics: Multiagency Approaches for Countering Violent Extremism. Gothenburg: the Segerstedt Institute.
Sivenbring, J., & Malmros, R. A. (2021). Collaboration in Hybrid Spaces: The Case of Nordic Efforts to Counter Violent Extremism.
Walkenhorst, D., & Ruf, M. (2018). „Vertrauen ist gut, Kontrolle ist besser “? Sicherheitspolitisches vs. Pädagogisches Handeln in der Extremismusprävention. Von Drachenfels, Magdalena/Philipp Offermann/Carmen Wunderlich, Radikalisierung Und De-Radikalisierung in Deutschland, Eine Gesamtgesellschaftliche Herausforderung, 1, 101–106.
Young, H. F., Rooze, M., & Holsappel, J. (2015). Translating conceptualizations into practical suggestions: What the literature on radicalization can offer to practitioners. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 21(2), 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000065