Category: Blog

Radicalization, terrorism and extremism are central keywords that can be associated with the projects within the VORTEX network. They are also reflected in the title “Coping with Varieties of Radicalization into Terrorism and Extremism” that makes up the acronym VORTEX. However, these terms are often used interchangeably, leading to a somewhat blurred understanding. While one might expect such terms to be distinctly defined in scientific discourse and prevention practice, even experts exhibit varying interpretations and definitions. Disagreement on the definitions is not restricted to this realm, but can be observed for many other notions and concepts in the social sciences. This lack of consensus is not for want of trying, but rather a reflection of the inherent complexity of these issues. Nevertheless, discussions about such core concepts are essential as they shape and reproduce political, practical as well as empirical approaches. 

Divergences regarding appropriate attributions of terms often stem from ideological or political considerations, notably evident in discussions surrounding protest movements. Climate activists and the current farmer protests in Europe provide a contemporary example. Besides the well-known Friday protests by the Fridays For Future movement, various other climate movements and forms of protest have emerged globally, among which the Last Generation in Germany and Austria. Their actions mainly comprise peaceful blockages of roads by gluing their hands to the street to stop automobile locomotion in order to foster actions against climate change. Traffic blockades as a form of climate activism can be observed in various European countries like the Netherlands or Norway. Furthermore, this mode of protest has been employed in other spheres, as seen in the recent farmer protests in France or Germany, where processions of agricultural tractors were utilized to obstruct traffic, advocating for reforms.

Although their means of action could be considered similar, their perception as well as the success of their demands was not. In this regard, the Last Generation’s activism in Germany has been particularly unpopular to the extent that they have been suspected of being a criminal organization. Moreover, they have been referred to as ‘climate terrorists’ or ‘Climate-RAF’. The latter draws a link to the Red Army Fraction which murdered prominent political and business figures from 1970 to 1990 in Germany, thereby suggesting a violent development of the movement. Linking yet peaceful forms of protest to terrorism, radicalization or extremism is often employed to delegitimate actions and consequently depreciate (political) adversaries. At the same time, it also serves to legitimize actions comprising far-reaching countermeasures, giving rise to securitization approaches in countering radicalization.

This is due to the common negative connotation inherent to radicalization, extremism and terrorism alike. Thus, suggesting that these concepts are (implicitly) assumed to be consecutive. Meaning that radicalization is at least implicitly understood as a unidirectional process of radicalization into terrorism or violent extremism. Although the title of the doctoral network could be read in a similar manner, it points to varieties of radicalization as processes of radicalization that are distinct and dynamic in nature. On one hand, radicalization processes do not necessarily stagnate once exhibiting violent behavior but might rather continue by implementing more and more violent actions. This is a factor that warrants consideration in planning prevention programs.

On the other hand, radicalization may occur on an ideological level without ever becoming violent. In such cases, possibilities for intervention in primary prevention are often overlooked. Nevertheless, radicalization cannot be considered as inherently dangerous in these cases. Reflecting on current norms also provides potential for emancipatory transformations. A compelling example is that of the women’s movement beginning in the 18^th century. In many parts of the world, women’s access to political participation was limited. It was assumed that representing political opinions was designated exclusively for men. However, these conditions eventually were challenged, making way for equal rights demands by many women’s rights movements. What was considered radical at the time, has developed into a norm of democratic societies – women’s right to vote. Thus, radicalization must bear ambivalences that contradict a definite negative connotation.

Nevertheless, underlying assumptions regarding radicalization are crucial not only in how the term is understood but also in how it is employed. Since the above-mentioned differentiations are often undermined also in research practice, some scholars have reservations engaging with the term ‘radicalization’. Concerns about contributing and lending legitimacy to societal securitization have been voiced. Therefore, raising the question of how to proceed with such a contested term that shows lack of conceptual clarity and consistency. This blog post argues for a broad conceptualization of radicalization that provides the opportunity to acknowledge its inherent ambivalences as well as manifold processes, including and recognizing violent as well as non-violent processes. This critical, context-related approach is also a common thread that connects research endeavors within VORTEX to foster a balanced approach that safeguards civil liberties while addressing genuine threats. Nevertheless, it does not come without challenges, but acknowledes the concept in its full scope, which is vital for prevention efforts, political strategies as well as research practice. 

Bibliography

Abay Gaspar, H., Daase, C., Deitelhoff, N., Junk, J., & Sold, M. (2018). Was ist Radikalisierung? – Präzisierungen eines umstrittenen Begriffs. Leibniz-Institut Hessische Stiftung Friedens- und Konfliktforschung (HSFK).

Coolsaet, R. (2019). Radicalization: The origins and limits of a contested concept. In Radicalisation in Belgium and the Netherlands: Critical perspectives on violence and security (S. 29–51). IB Tauris.

Malthaner, S. (2017). Radicalization: The Evolution of an Analytical Paradigm. European Journal of Sociology, 58(3), 369–401. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975617000182

How do different countries assess whether their measures to prevent and counter violent extremism (P/CVE) are effective? This is what a group of researchers at the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin and the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt are investigating as part of the PrEval project. Building on her previous involvement in the team ‘International Monitoring’, VORTEX doctoral candidate Lotta Rahlf is now working on a European comparative study of P/CVE evaluation systems. Here, she interviews her former colleagues Sophie Ebbecke, Sarah Bressan and Angela Herz, who share some initial results of an international comparative study on P/CVE evaluation practices in 14 countries across the globe.

Time and again, there are concerns that so few P/CVE efforts are evaluated. You have now carried out a very recent and extensive survey – is this still the case today?

Unfortunately, there is still room for improvement. In some countries, many P/CVE efforts remain insufficiently evaluated or are not evaluated at all, but evaluation practice is increasingly professionalised in others. This is a welcoming development but makes it all the more important to engage in a cross-national dialogue for sharing experiences and building capacities. Many formats are currently being created that promote such exchanges, such as P/CVE-specific networks where practitioners and evaluators can exchange experiences. Our international comparative study also sheds some light on the somewhat murky field of evaluation by providing answers as to how other countries go about it. 

Then why are there still difficulties in evaluating P/CVE in some countries? 

There are numerous reasons for this, but the most common is that the structures for evaluation are not yet well developed in many countries or that methodological skills are still lacking. Sometimes, stakeholders have varying experiences with P/CVE evaluation and different ideas about measuring effectiveness and do not yet engage in adequate dialogue. In some countries, there is also a lack of fundamental awareness of the added value of evaluation and insufficient funding for it. Yet, all these issues are interrelated, to put it simply. Where there is little funding, there is often little motivation to evaluate, either because there is a lack of awareness of the added value or because the money is perhaps spent on implementing the project rather than on an evaluation. After all, if resources are scarce, the insights gained from an evaluation might be limited anyway. 

The lack of evaluation skills to conduct high-quality and more frequent P/CVE evaluations is a problem that affects many countries. Some evaluation designs still cause great uncertainty, for example, experimental designs, which involve the ethical issues of withholding an intervention from a control group to examine the effectiveness of a P/CVE measure. Therefore, the reservations about such designs are large, while less problematic quasi-experimental designs, in which no randomisation of people into different groups takes place, are increasingly appreciated.

Sometimes, suitable evaluation structures and skills for evaluation are in place, yet few evaluations occur. This can then also be related to the planning of P/CVE efforts. If evaluation is not considered from the outset, not enough or not the right data will be collected to allow statements about the effectiveness of a measure.

Does evaluation contribute to improving P/CVE efforts?

Every evaluation leads to insights into the functioning or effectiveness of a P/CVE effort, which can contribute to its improvement. However, P/CVE evaluations are frequently associated with accountability – to the funder and/or public. Is the large amount of taxpayer money well spent? In many countries, we observe an interweaving of evaluation purposes: depending on whether learning or accountability is prioritised, the evaluation design differs in each case. Many of our experts stated that the desire to evaluate to justify the effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of the resources provided prevails. In other cases, scientific interest in empirical evidence for the effectiveness of various measures takes centre stage. Ideally, an evaluation takes place in an environment with a strong learning culture in which the evaluation is allowed to critically examine the effectiveness of the measure without constant concerns about consequences regarding the P/CVE project’s future. 

You also posed questions about inspiring practices regarding P/CVE evaluation. Can you identify some promising developments?

As mentioned earlier, we are seeing more openness to dealing with sophisticated evaluation designs, such as quasi-experimental ones. For example, pre- and post-designs are particularly popular in our field to estimate the effect of a measure. In addition, the complexity of settings in which P/CVE efforts take place and the challenges to evaluation that this entails are increasingly being researched. The possibility of evaluating so-called multi-agency settings in which civil society and security agency actors may also be involved is currently being explored. Evaluation research is, of course, also influenced by technical developments. The question increasingly arises as to how digital methods can facilitate evaluation or what possibilities and limitations the use of AI offers. There is still a lot of research to be done here.

Finally, would you like to briefly explain your project? 

Our team ‘International Monitoring’ is part of PrEval, a German research and transfer project involving 15 partner institutions. PrEval seeks to develop evaluation and quality assurance in the fields of extremism prevention, democracy promotion, and civic education by researching this practice and developing formats that contribute to strengthening it. From the outset, the idea behind our project was that looking abroad can be inspirational for developing German evaluation practice. We sought to identify particularly promising and innovative approaches from which the German prevention and evaluation landscape could benefit by conducting comparative research into evaluation practices in other countries. We sent an online questionnaire to 37 experts from 14 countries in different regions of the world. For each country, we gathered insights from 2-4 experts about (among other things) the actors involved, the financing of evaluation, the methods used, which obstacles but also innovations exist and how evaluation results are dealt with. To contextualise this, we also asked what measures to prevent extremism exist in each country and let our experts assess extremist threats and trends in their countries. Additionally, we will conduct several issue-centred studies that allow us to delve deeper into some relevant topics, such as effective support structures for enhancing evaluation capacity.

When will we be able to read more about your research findings? 

Our final report and case studies will be published as an English-language publication by the Global Public Policy Institute in 2024. All other publications from the PrEval project will also be available on the project website: https://preval.hsfk.de/en/

PrEval runs from October 2022 to 2025 and is funded by the Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community.

Research on online radicalization operates within a complex web of ethical and legal constraints. While the pursuit of knowledge in this field is crucial, it must be approached with a thorough understanding of these challenges. Researchers are tasked with the delicate balance of advancing academic inquiry while upholding ethical standards and legal requirements. Only through such responsible research practices can the field progress in a manner that is both legally sound and ethically robust.

One of crucial ethical aspects to consider is obtaining informed consent, which as described by Reynolds (2012), is a significant ethical challenge in academic research on online radicalization. Traditionally, informed consent is essential in human subject research, but its application in online environments, especially in public chat rooms or dynamic social media groups, might be tricky and involve certain negative consequences.  

First, when dealing with online communities of extreme nature, by seeking consent we risk alerting the group members’ behavior, as well as potential deletion of certain posts. This could jeopardize the authenticity of the data’s naturalistic setting and the overall validity of the research, which would undermine the goals of the study.

Second, revealing the researcher’s presence might risk reprisals from the subjects against the researcher and the team. Internet research on radicalization, while digital, still encompasses the communication of real individuals and should be treated as fieldwork in potentially risky environments. The necessity of maintaining covertness under such circumstances has been previously addressed in the literature (Lee-Treweek & Linkogle, 2000).

Extreme online communities are vigilant about their security, often closely monitoring group interactions to identify and remove anyone deemed ‘unfriendly’ or suspicious. This vigilance is not just about maintaining group integrity but also about controlling the flow of information. In his article, Reynolds (Reynolds, 2012) mentions a specific online community, where the designated security officer successfully detected and exposed trolls or spies. More than twelve individuals identified in this manner were publicly named and subsequently expelled from the group.

This practice of strict surveillance and control extends to academic researchers as well. Hudson and Bruckman (2004)encountered this directly in their study. When attempting to obtain informed consent from participants, the researchers frequently faced resistance and exclusion. They were expelled from chat rooms 72% of the time when requesting participants to opt out of the study and 62% of the time when asking for opt-in consent. This high rate of sanction demonstrates the challenges researchers face when studying online environments. Consequently, Hudson and Bruckman suggest that waiving informed consent might be a more feasible approach in such settings, where the standard practice of obtaining consent is impractical due to the heightened sensitivity and guarded nature of these online communities. Nevertheless, the mentioned study was conducted prior to the introduction of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) that is our current legal norm.

These important regulations were considered in the 2021 report by Sold and Junk, titled Researching Extremist Content on Social Media Platforms: Data Protection and Research Ethics Challenges and Opportunities (Sold & Junk, 2021). The authors highlight that the legal regulations, particularly those outlined in the GDPR, play a crucial role in navigating the challenges of obtaining informed consent.

For instance, they mention Article 9(2)(e), which addresses a scenario in which researchers may utilize data if the data subject has consciously chosen to publish sensitive information. It lifts the data processing prohibition outlined in paragraph 1 of this article, signaling that the data subject, through conscious publication, acknowledges that their data may be used for research purposes. This waiver of the special protection under Article 9 suggests that the data subject may perceive the information as no longer requiring specific safeguards. However, it is essential to note that even when data is consciously published by the individual, it does not entirely forego the protections of the GDPR. Notably, Article 6 remains applicable, emphasizing that the processing of data, even when Article 9 protections are waived, still requires a legal basis. The lawful bases listed in Article 6 include:

• The necessity of processing for the performance of a contract.
• Compliance with a legal obligation.
• Protection of vital interests.
• Consent
• The performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority.
• Legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or a third party.

This underscores the GDPR’s commitment to ensuring that the processing of personal data, whether sensitive or not, is conducted within a robust legal and ethical framework. This requires a careful balance between research interests and the data subject’s legitimate interests. Notably, processing without consent is permissible only in limited circumstances, such as when the public interest in the research project outweighs the data subject’s interests.

Furthermore, Article 9(2)(j) of the GDPR provides specific rules for processing special categories of personal data for research purposes and these rules apply irrespective of whether researchers seek informed consent from participants. These special categories encompass sensitive information such as racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, and others. Processing personal data falling under these categories for research demands a meticulous approach. Researchers must demonstrate the specific research question, establish the impracticability of the project without the data, and conduct a careful balancing act to showcase that the research interest significantly outweighs the data subject’s interest in data protection. Adherence to principles of necessity, appropriateness, and proportionality in data processing, as well as the establishment of data access regulations, is necessary to ensure full compliance with data protection regulations. Including these legal considerations in online radicalization research is essential to ensure that studies are conducted with strong ethical foundations and in compliance with the law in this challenging field.

References

European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). Retrieved from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679

Hudson, J. M., & Bruckman, A. (2004). “Go away”: Participant objections to being studied and the ethics of chatroom research. The information society, 20(2), 127-139.

Lee-Treweek, G., & Linkogle, S. (2000). Danger in the field: Risk and ethics in social research. Psychology Press.

Reynolds, T. (2012). Ethical and legal issues surrounding academic research into online radicalisation: a UK experience. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 5(3), 499-513.

Sold, M., & Junk, J. (2021). Researching Extremist Content on Social Media Platforms: Data Protection and Research Ethics Challenges and Opportunities (Kings’s College ICSR London: GNET-Report., Issue. https://gnet-research.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/GNET-Report-Researching-Extremist-Content-Social-Media-Ethics.pdf