Preventing Radicalisation in 1st and 2nd Level Education: A Systematic Review of the Intervention Literature

The radicalisation of citizens towards extremist ideologies which endorse violence has been identified as a global security issue. In order to prevent radicalisation, civil society has been identified as valuable resource which should be harnessed in the design of effective interventions. Many governments have adopted preventative measures and embraced school-based counter-radicalisation interventions, stressing the importance of adopting them to local and national school curricula. However, there is no synthesis of the evaluation, effectiveness or evidence-base of such interventions to inform future policy. We conducted a systematic literature search using Science Direct, Scopus, PsycInfo and Academic Search Complete databases with search terms relating to education, school, extremism, political violence and terrorism. Papers were included if they described an intervention aimed at preventing propensity towards extremism, targeted children in first or second level education and were written in English between 2000 and 2015. We identified five papers with eight interventions; six were classroom-based in which an intervention was delivered in conjunction with the school curriculum. Two interventions were in the form of day-trips or workshops. Results found that interventions targeted a range of risk factors including comprehension, anger, empathy, coping style, self-esteem and self-efficacy. Four of the interventions did not provide a theory of change; four provided a selection of theoretical backdrops largely based in social cognitive theory. Six of the eight interventions were evaluated using pre-and post-tests; changes in attitudes, empathy, conceptions of peace and coping were moderated by political orientation and gender in two interventions. Two interventions used post-test only and effectiveness was determined by feedback. Improvements were reported in all interventions. The authors explain that the overwhelming assortment of radicalisation ‘risk factors’ makes the design of interventions of this kind imprecise and the absence of a theoretical backdrop stunts development. Furthermore, the evaluation of such programmes, although noteworthy in many cases, often fails to be a priority. Finally, in measuring the effectiveness of these interventions, it may be worth considering that behaviour change is not a feasible goal for radicalisation prevention interventions given the ambiguity of their target behaviour.