Systematic Reviews

Goal

To synthesize the available empirical data related to the ways in which Internet and social media constitute or not a forum of interaction leading to violent and extremist forms of engagement – both online and offline.

Discussion

Since the emergence of social media in 2005, the Internet is increasingly depicted as an active vector for violent radicalization. The production, dissemination, and consumption of multimedia via the open online Internet have been instrumental in the propagation of hateful, discriminatory speech. However, as of today, most of the available research on the links between the Internet, social media, and violent radicalization is descriptive in nature, providing limited insights on the true impact of terrorist groups’ online practices and strategies. In other words, the link between exposure to violent radical material online and violent radical behaviour online and/or offline remains unknown, largely due to the lack of integration of available empirical evidence into a meaningful whole for policy, research, and prevention purposes.

CPN-PREV and its partners have reviewed the literature on exposure to violent radical content online and the violent radicalization of attitudes and behaviours. The systematic review achieved the following objectives:

• Synthesize the available empirical data related to the ways in which Internet and social media constitute or not a forum of interaction leading to violent and extremist forms of engagement – both online and offline;
• Assess the current state and quality of the available scientific data;
• Identify gaps and limitations in the literature and highlight future research needs.

For further information, click here.

Goal

To synthesize the available empirical date on whether CVE prevention and intervention initiatives really work.

Discussion

In the last two decades, terrorist attacks have become more globalized, affecting multiple societies around the world. The public and policymakers have become increasingly fearful of potential attacks, justifying massive investments in efforts to counter radicalization and violent extremism.

As a response, prevention/intervention programs have been implemented throughout the world. This effort to counter violent radicalization has led to increased involvement of institutions outside national security, including mental health and education sectors, as well as legal and prison systems.

For example, in the United States alone, around 1 trillion dollars were invested in programs to counter terrorist activities between 2001 and 2011. Even though most of this sum was directed towards surveillance and security agencies, part of is was also directed towards programs that aim to prevent the radicalization of vulnerable populations and rehabilitate individuals already on a path towards radicalization.

Although the swiftness with which these programs were developed and implemented is commendable, the limited timeframe left very few opportunities to empirically assess their positive and negative outcomes. The issue of iatrogenic effects is particularly important to prevention and intervention programs, as they are entrenched in ideological conflicts.

To summarize, the success or failure of most prevention/intervention programs largely remains a matter of opinion rather than of evidence. Practitioners are currently relying on the local expertise and case-by-case results to design prevention/intervention programs. Despite the clear benefits of a rapid response such as this one, the rollout of these programs in the absence of integrated evidence regarding outcomes, transferability, and benefits to communities, may be counterproductive or even result in greater harm for the targeted populations.

In order to inform policymakers and practitioners on what really works in prevention and intervention programs, the CPN-PREV research team will conduct two systematic reviews that address the following questions:

• Are prevention/intervention programs really able to counter violent radicalization?
• Are there specific program modalities associated with a higher chance of success or failure?
• What evidence-based recommendations can be developed to help professionals involved in current and future intervention efforts?

Because preliminary evidence suggests that prevention and intervention programs have diverging ranges of outcomes and are aimed at different groups, the CPN-PREV research team decided to treat them in two separate reviews.

Goal

To synthesize the available empirical data on whether disengagement and deradicalization initiatives work.

Discussion

The social reintegration programs or the so-called tertiary prevention approaches are among the programs most widely used. They seek to rehabilitate people who have actually been part of an extremist group or who have been considered as radicalized.  There are at least two types of these such programs:

1. Disengagement programs, which generally aim to rehabilitate presumed or convicted radicalized individuals or groups and reintegrate them into society, or at least deter them from resorting to political violence again;
2. Deradicalization programs, which intents to change an individual’s belief system in order to reject an extremist ideology and adopt the values of the majority (Rabasa, Pettyjohn, Ghez, & Boucek, 2010).

When these measures target individuals who have already committed terrorist acts, they are considered as measures to prevent recidivism, as they aim to reduce the likelihood that these individuals will commit a terrorist act again.

In order to inform policymakers and practitioners on what really works, the CPN-PREV team will conduct a systematic review that address the following questions:

• Are tertiary prevention programs able to counter violent radicalization?
• Are there specific program modalities associated with a higher chance of success or failure?
• What evidence-based recommendations can be developed to help professionals involved in current and future intervention efforts?

Goal

To synthesize available empirical data on tools and procedures used to assess the risk of violent radicalisation: their reliability, their validity and their balance of benefits and harms.

Discussion

Risk assessment of crime and violence has positioned itself as a cornerstone of modern correctional practices, as it enables reliable and valid estimates of the risk that individuals pose for society, based on their personal characteristics and social environment. Since the 1980s, risk assessment tools have been widely used by North American and European social science professionals in order to structure the important case-management decisions that they are routinely required to make. Unsurprisingly, such tools and procedures have been developed to screen an individual’s risk of adopting a path leading to violent radicalization or the commitment of terrorist acts.

However, there have been few efforts to evaluate the assessment tools and procedures’ reliability, validity, and benefits/harms balance for society and the assessee. Thus, the fifth CPN-PREV systematic review will look into the following questions:

Reliability

Do these tools and procedures produce similar results when different professionals assess the same case (inter-rater agreement)? Do they produce similar results when the same case is assessed at different times (“test-retest” reliability)? Are they internally consistent?

Validity

Do these tools/procedures measure the phenomenon that they are supposed to measure? Do they predict the expected outcomes (predictive validity)? Do they fit with similar measures from the same field (convergent validity)?

Benefits and harms

What are the benefits and harms of these tools/procedures for public safety and for the assessee? Do the benefits outweigh the potential harms (e.g., stigmatization, false accusations, deprivation of individual and collective freedom)?

The review will integrate evidence on tools and procedures designed to assess the risk of violent radicalization. It will also reflect on their transferability and applicability to the Canadian context by taking into consideration community-related implementation issues and costs.

Goal

To synthesize the available empirical data on how the CVE/PVE prevention and intervention initiatives have been evaluated.

Discussion

As a result of the rise in terrorist acts in different parts of the world, prevention and intervention programs have increased. Unfortunately, this increase has not been accompanied by the development of a well-defined conceptual, organizational, and empirical framework as a field of practice. As an exemple, Heydemann explains that “This blurring of boundaries reinforces perceptions of CVE as a catch-all category ” (2014, p. 10). Both stakeholders and decision-makers have little evidence to guide their actions based on promising or effective practices in this area, making evaluations one of the key issues.

Despite this deficit, there is some consensus among researchers, stakeholders and decision-makers on the need to develop evaluation models adapted to this type of program. For practitioners, evaluations contribute to the improvement of their practice. For researchers, they provide a better understanding of the mechanisms and processes that explain the success or failure of interventions. Finally, for decision-makers, they guide public policy and make limited sources of funding more effective.

In order to inform decision-makers, practitioners and researchers on the most appropriate methods to evaluate such programs, the UNESCO-PREV Chair in partnership with CPN-PREV, will conduct a systematic review that will address the following questions:

• What are the most appropriate methods, indicators and types of evaluation to measure the effectiveness of this type of program?
• What evidence-based recommendations can be developed for professionals working in the field of prevention and intervention?