Credibility contests: The contributions of experiential knowledge to radicalisation expertise

Introduction

Prevent has been in place for nearly twenty years and remains a key pillar of the UK's counter-terrorism strategy (HM Government, 2018). It seeks to stop people ‘from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism’ (HM Government, 2018, 31). More specifically, it aims to prevent ‘radicalisation’ by countering and reducing support for extremist ideologies and intervening with individuals who are ‘vulnerable’ to supporting or committing terrorist acts. In this sense, Prevent is a risk management strategy that seeks to anticipate and pre-empt danger, part of a wider precautionary turn in countering terrorism (Martin, 2014). The wide net cast by this early intervention approach, and its impacts on individuals and communities, have been the subject of extensive debate and heavy criticism particularly since the introduction of the Prevent Duty in 2015 and its responsibilisation of public services in counter-radicalisation practice (e.g. Heath-Kelly and Strausz, 2019; Sabir, 2017).

The focus here is on radicalisation, the theory on which this policy arc stands. The UK government's understanding of radicalisation has been set out in successive Prevent policy documents. Concomitant to this policy development has been the emergence of a radicalisation expert community that has been active in researching and theorising the idea. A key segment of the expert community is experiential experts. Practitioners, ex-extremists and community activists have been visible from the start of the Prevent agenda, prominent in policy debates and active contributors to the development of radicalisation theory. This is in contrast to some areas of UK social policy in which relevant knowledge from experts by experience, for example drug users (Monaghan et al., 2018) and benefit claimants (Patrick, 2020), remains undervalued. Even in areas of policy making that have more recently sought participation, challenges remain in practice to the acceptance of non-established forms of expertise and the meaningfulness of their inclusion has been questioned (e.g. Smith-Merry, 2020; Tisdall, 2017).

Building on the debates over terrorism and expertise that have taken place in this journal (e.g. Glasby and Beresford, 2006; Ragazzi, 2017), the paper considers conceptualisations of radicalisation expertise with a particular focus on the role of experiential knowledge. It examines how the credibility of experiential experts is demonstrated as well as how it is challenged. These challenges have precedence within terrorism studies; terrorism experts have previously articulated concerns that unqualified or inexperienced individuals are able to claim seemingly authoritative insights on terrorism (e.g. Stampnitzky, 2011). Such debates raise questions about who is authorised to speak on radicalisation and the limitations on diversity in the expert community. A focus on contested expertise enables an analysis of how the boundaries of expertise are constructed on this topic to include or exclude different forms of knowledge.

The paper begins by providing background on evidence and expertise on radicalisation, as well the nature and role of experiential knowledge in conceptualisations of expertise. This is followed by an outline of the methods used in the research. Data is then presented on the ways by which the credibility of experiential experts is constructed and challenged on this topic.

Knowledge on radicalisation and the boundaries of expertise

Knowledge on radicalisation is embedded in the wider history of terrorism studies. Stampnitzky (2013, 49–82) traces a shift since the 1970s from policy and expert narratives of insurgency that acknowledged the relational dynamics of conflict situations to those of terrorism that depoliticised acts of political violence, instead characterising them as irrational and immoral. Since the early 2000s, the causes of terrorism in turn have been understood in terms of radicalisation and the focus of expert theory, policy and practice in this area has largely been on individual risk indicators and pathways (Silva, 2018; Younis, 2021). Research has shown that media reportage on terrorism tends to reflect dominant perspectives (Miller and Mills, 2009; Silva, 2018, 45–6), which constrains expert narratives and the sources that are able to speak on the topic (Ahmad, 2020). More generally, terrorism research has tended to work largely within the interests of the policy community (Mills et al., 2020). The boundaries of debate as well as the worthiness of different types of knowledge are actively constrained by such features of this policy-led and politicised topic area.

Underpinning policy narratives on radicalisation however are continuing weaknesses in the evidence base. The issues detailed by terrorism studies scholars, including a lack of empirical evidence, theoretical development and workable policy and practice recommendations (e.g. Sageman, 2014) have also been identified in radicalisation research (e.g. Bouhana and Wikstrom, 2011, 13–14; Feddes and Gallucci, 2015). While empirical evidence has cumulated on particular factors, there is a remaining lack of evidence around causality (Gøtzsche-Astrup, 2018). The conclusion of a parliamentary inquiry into radicalisation published shortly after the release of the current Prevent strategy was bleak: ‘The weakness of the evidence base came across strongly during our inquiry’ (Home Affairs Committee, 2012, 10). A particular issue is the exclusion of data on or from those processed by state interventions (Qureshi, 2020), with access blocked to researchers from the early days of Prevent (e.g. King and Taylor, 2011, 615–8). Although a recent review of terrorism studies finds an increase in methodological diversity and the use of primary data, it shows no sign of a rise in the use of direct accounts from such voices (Schuurman, 2020). The limited evidence base of Prevent has been a central refrain of the research and policy community from the start and undermines its central concept of radicalisation. Despite this, the concept has reshaped dominant understandings of the causes of terrorism, with implications seen in Prevent's broad application of risk parameters and continually disproportionate direction towards Muslim communities (Pettinger, 2020). 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 then 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. Research on the topic is multidisciplinary, and think tanks and official agencies are active sites of knowledge production alongside academia (Neumann and Kleinmann, 2013, 369–70). Mythen et al. (2017) argue that Prevent's narrow conceptualisation of radicalisation fails to reflect the diverse and often diverging research-based accounts coming from the expert community. While dominant understandings of radicalisation focus on individual risk, there are calls for more attention to political and social context (e.g. Schmid, 2013, 2–5). There is no clearly agreed-upon definition of ‘radicalisation’ (Bailey and Edwards, 2017), and the literature suggests that it is a complex, multifactorial process with a range of potential explanatory factors (e.g. McGilloway et al., 2015). Prevent itself is characterised by distributed governance and negotiated practice, with a myriad of activities and actors involved (Home Office, 2011, 95–106), subject to contestation over policy theory in the policy process and interpreted and implemented differently across local areas (O’Toole et al., 2016). This means that as national strategy filters through implementation structures, the meaning of radicalisation and the assessment of its associated risks is constructed in practice (Pettinger, 2020). Although 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. The paper analyses the construction of hierarchies of knowledge in this context, discussing the nature and implications of this broad and diverse distribution of knowledge in terms of expertise on radicalisation.

Radicalisation expertise is set in a context of broader changes in conceptualisations of the nature of expertise. Nowotny (2003) talks of the ‘pluralisation of expertise’ as the rise of experience as a source of authoritative knowledge alongside scientific knowledge and credentialed experts. There are ongoing efforts to recognise and utilise the potential contributions of experiential expertise in research, policy and practice (e.g. Stewart et al., 2020), and research has demonstrated cases where expert credibility has been extended to a wide range of actors (e.g. Epstein, 1995). As originally conceptualised, experiential knowledge is ‘truth learned from personal experience with a phenomenon’ (Borkman, 1976, 446), becoming expertise when paired with an ability to use that knowledge to address a problem (Borkman, 1976, 447). The significance of these discussions is that those who are attributed expertise have the power to make authoritative statements on the social world: they have a recognised ability to conceptualise and explain a particular issue, as in Gieryn's (1999) idea of epistemic authority. Any attribution of expertise is of course subject to the competition inherent to expert status (Evans, 2015, 21–3). Gieryn (1999, 1) says that ‘“Credibility contests” are a chronic feature of the social scene: bearers of discrepant truths push their wares wrapped in assertions of objectivity, efficacy, precision, reliability, authenticity, predictability, sincerity, desirability, tradition’. The stakes are the believability of the knowledge claims and conceptual arguments that an expert is promoting, and the outcomes shape who can claim an authoritative voice on a topic.

Such contests are particularly apparent at the faultline between research and experience-based knowledge. Despite movements towards inclusive notions of expertise, the dominant discourse of evidence-based policy making remains focused on the primacy of knowledge from research and validity based on methodological rigour (Smith-Merry, 2020). In terrorism studies, Jackson (2012) conceptualised ‘unknown knowns’ as knowledge that is ignored or downplayed, and may include that which is judged to be inferior or ‘unscientific’ by other analysts. Some have argued for more understanding of how counter-terrorism strategies are experienced by those processed by counter-terrorist systems and by Muslim communities more broadly (Jarvis, 2019; Qureshi, 2020). A different perspective comes from a terrorism scholar who states that many of those claiming expertise on terrorism post-9/11 ‘are not truly scholars, are not versed in the scientific method, and often pursue a political agenda’ (Sageman, 2014, 566). 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.

Methodology

This paper draws on data from a pluralist analysis of radicalisation expertise that examined the diversity of the expert community's ideas, actors and knowledge types. From this pluralist framework came an inclusive conceptualisation of ‘radicalisation expert’ as those who claimed or were attributed expert knowledge, or whose research or experience was suggestive of a specialisation on the topic. The topic was defined as the nature and causes of radicalisation. This approach enabled a focus on where the boundaries of expertise are drawn by the wide set of actors who contribute to knowledge generation in practice. It complements other studies on core sets of terrorism researchers (e.g. Miller and Mills, 2009). The study focused on peer judgements, examining the competing claims to credible knowledge within the expert community.

The paper draws on data from interviews conducted with UK-based experts between October 2012 and October 2014. The research used techniques from the elite interviewing literature (Dexter, 2006; Wicker and Connelly, 2014). A semi-structured approach was taken, with the topic guide adapted as the research progressed and questioning responsive to interviewees’ specialised knowledge. Thirty-two interviews were conducted, plus two pilot interviews. On the basis of a documentary analysis carried out as part of the wider project, a list of experts was created and purposively sampled. The sample included individuals with a range of substantive perspectives on radicalisation. It was comprised of fourteen academics, eleven think tank researchers, and seven working in policy, practice and communities. Many interviewees had diverse professional backgrounds across these sectors. Interviews were recorded, with transcription carried out by the author soon afterwards to enable ongoing reflection on the findings. Thematic accounts of initial interviews were produced to explore emergent themes and further refine interview schedules. Data was entered into NVivo and coded using both concepts from the research questions as well as ideas from the data itself (Mason, 1994, 91–95).

Ethical approval was gained from the University of Leeds. Privacy was a particular concern to interviewees, with eighteen requesting a copy of their transcript, four making revisions to their transcripts for the purposes of anonymisation or clarity of expression and thirteen requiring the approval of any quotations. Anonymity can be difficult with elite interviews (Walford, 1994, 89–90), with interviewees vulnerable as a result in terms of their relationships with colleagues (Blakeley, 2013, 165), and the risks of identification seem to have been recognised by those involved given the high proportion of checks and amendments requested.

A limitation of the research is its focus on only three types of experiential knowledge. This was reflective of the voices that were most visible in both public debate on the issue and in interview data and can also be attributed to pragmatic issues around access. A limitation of the current analysis is the age of the data; with Prevent entering British policy in 2003, the paper discusses expertise during the strategy's first eleven years. The issues raised by the paper however have broader implications for understandings of knowledge on radicalisation as well as expertise more generally.

Defences and denials of the role of experiential knowledge in radicalisation expertise

Conclusion

The implications of this pluralist analysis of the radicalisation expert community are seen in the contested boundaries of its expertise. While experts seek to differentiate themselves from non-experts and from the wider public debate on this issue, they do it in diverse and often disputed ways. Although 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. Experiential experts on this topic can promote and defend their expertise by characterising it as rare and closely detailed local knowledge, a persuasive argument in the context of a developing topic area with no established group of experts or fixed notion of expertise. In the absence of a strong evidence base, referring to the challenges of data generation and the blind spots of academic research on this topic creates space for alternative ways of demonstrating relevant and useful knowledge. Official statements, particularly towards the beginning of the Prevent agenda, bolstered these arguments through their articulations of limited knowledge on the topic and desire to hear from those regarded as having direct knowledge of the issues. More generally, experiential expertise draws on an account of expert credibility that speaks less to generating theory-driven empirical knowledge and more to policy relevance. The ability to understand and explain real scenarios and make recommendations for practice is valued by those that address applied questions. This might be expected given that the concept of radicalisation originated in policy, official funding has supported the work of the expert community, and counter-radicalisation remains a core part of the UK's counter-terrorism approach; knowledge from outside the academic community has thrived given the highly applied nature of this topic.

It is useful to consider the transferability of this research and the implications that can be drawn as to the nature of expertise and its mobilisation in policy making processes. We might expect that a similarly controversial and much-discussed topic area like UK drugs policy would also feature vocal experiential experts. However, while the drugs debate is closed to alternative voices, particularly drug users, by historically dominant policy framings and expert communities (Monaghan et al., 2018), the diversity in radicalisation debates is fostered by the nature of the topic area as newly conceptualised with sparse and contested evidence. Conversely, while there are longstanding strategic efforts to use experiential expertise in healthcare policy making, in practice it remains marginalised here too (O'Shea et al., 2019). In particular, scientific expertise remains dominant and experiential expertise must usually be supported by another form of evidence in order to gain credibility (Mazanderani et al., 2020). The case of radicalisation again provides a contrast to this; as a topic that draws in a broad spectrum of specialisms, competing notions of authoritative knowledge mean that authority is less tied to science and sources of credibility are more variable. Experiential expertise was frequently justified through reference to subjective experience rather than research knowledge and in this sense experiential experts are a distinct part of the expert community drawing on alternative notions of credibility. Similarly, while science is the ultimate marker of authority in Gieryn’s (1999) conceptualisation of credibility contests, not all radicalisation experts attempt to justify their contributions in terms of science. Building on understandings of terrorism expertise as non-institutionalised (Stampnitzky, 2013), the sub-topic of radicalisation demonstrates the relevance and contribution of different forms of knowledge and the flexible and permeable boundaries of the expert community. The characteristics of radicalisation expertise suggest then the potential of a newly conceptualised, evidence poor and highly applied topic to create an opening in science-dominant conceptualisations of expertise.

Overall then, experiential knowledge is a powerful marker of authority on this topic, supporting articulations of the boundaries of expertise and enabling participation in policy and public debate. Examining the diversity and contestation underpinning the dominant ideas of radicalisation behind Prevent indicates that part of the power of the radicalisation narrative is drawn from the myriad ways that authority can be claimed on it. At the same time, the data shows other experts challenging the credibility of experiential knowledge on radicalisation by reference to its relevance and subjective nature. Flexible notions of authoritative knowledge enable experiential expertise to be resisted by those that conceptualise credibility in terms of theory-driven empirical investigations and value methodological integrity and theoretical advancement. While the boundaries of expertise may have been extended in some ways to enable a diverse set of experts to participate in generating understandings of radicalisation, clearly the stakes of epistemic authority are high and academic expertise will attempt to defend itself.

The data also speak then to broader discussions on the structures that permit or mute voice on this topic. Experiential experts have attempted to contribute knowledge to understandings of radicalisation, and have gained some success in policy and public debate, yet there is resistance from parts of the research community. On such a highly contested topic, this raises issues of inclusivity in conceptualisations of both expertise and radicalisation. There have been recent calls to listen widely to different forms of knowledge on terrorism as a way of expanding the parameters of debate (e.g. Jarvis, 2019; Qureshi, 2020). As demonstrated by the credibility contests (Gieryn, 1999) discussed in this paper however, reports of lived experience face active attempts at exclusion from understandings of expertise. Moreover, dominant framings of the policy problem limit who can speak from an experiential position, as indicated by the absence of those processed by counter-terrorism strategies like Prevent in policy making and research. These constraints on diversity in the expert community, alongside the fundamentally contested boundaries of expertise on this topic that mean that there is no one clear, exclusionary notion of authority, reinforce the value of inclusive debates that expand the types of knowledge that are listened to. Finally, while the paper has focused specifically on the struggles of experiential knowledge, and while collaborative approaches to research increasingly attempt to recognise and value such knowledge, the power dynamics within universities themselves and the exclusion of Black, Asian and minority ethnic researchers within academic practice are being increasingly scrutinised (Brown et al., 2020). These issues of power define the experiences that are worth knowing and in turn shape understandings of the topic. The outcomes of credibility contests and the relative epistemic authority of experts is particularly pertinent in this policy relevant topic area that has wide-ranging impacts on the communities and individuals that are judged to fall within its remit. An understanding of the complex ways by which expertise is actively constructed, defended and denied helps to explain the authority not only of particular experts but the continuation and direction of Prevent as a highly controversial strategy.