The enactment of the counter-terrorism ‘Prevent duty’ in British schools and colleges

Beyond reluctant accommodation or straightforward policy acceptance

Joel Busher, Tufyal Choudhury, Paul Thomas

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

When Britain imposed the ‘Prevent duty’, a legal duty on education, health and social welfare organisations to report concerns about individuals identified as at-risk of radicalisation, critics argued it would accentuate the stigmatisation of Muslim communities, ‘chill’ free speech, and exacerbate societal securitisation. Based on 70 interviews with educational professionals and a national online survey (n=225), this article examines their perceptions of how the duty has played out in practice. It then provides an explanation for why, contrary to expectations, not only has overt professional opposition been limited, but there has been some evidence of positive acceptance. It is argued that these findings neither simply reflect reluctant policy accommodation nor do they simply reflect straightforward policy acceptance, but rather they comprise the outcome of multi-level processes of policy narration, enactment and adaptation. Three processes are identified as being of particular importance in shaping education professionals’ engagement with the duty: the construction of radicalisation as a significant societal, institutional and personal risk; the construction of continuity between the Prevent duty and existing professional practices; and the responsibilisation of first-line professionals. The conclusion reflects on the wider public and policy implications of these findings.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)440-462
Number of pages23
JournalCritical Studies on Terrorism
Volume12
Issue number3
Early online date30 Jan 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 3 Jul 2019

Fingerprint

radicalization
accommodation
terrorism
acceptance
welfare organization
stigmatization
narration
online survey
social welfare
school
critic
Muslim
education
continuity
opposition
interview
health
community
evidence

Cite this

@article{b1016fe91afb47a4954210be2b9d6123,
title = "The enactment of the counter-terrorism ‘Prevent duty’ in British schools and colleges: Beyond reluctant accommodation or straightforward policy acceptance",
abstract = "When Britain imposed the ‘Prevent duty’, a legal duty on education, health and social welfare organisations to report concerns about individuals identified as at-risk of radicalisation, critics argued it would accentuate the stigmatisation of Muslim communities, ‘chill’ free speech, and exacerbate societal securitisation. Based on 70 interviews with educational professionals and a national online survey (n=225), this article examines their perceptions of how the duty has played out in practice. It then provides an explanation for why, contrary to expectations, not only has overt professional opposition been limited, but there has been some evidence of positive acceptance. It is argued that these findings neither simply reflect reluctant policy accommodation nor do they simply reflect straightforward policy acceptance, but rather they comprise the outcome of multi-level processes of policy narration, enactment and adaptation. Three processes are identified as being of particular importance in shaping education professionals’ engagement with the duty: the construction of radicalisation as a significant societal, institutional and personal risk; the construction of continuity between the Prevent duty and existing professional practices; and the responsibilisation of first-line professionals. The conclusion reflects on the wider public and policy implications of these findings.",
keywords = "Prevent, Counter-terrorism, Enactment, Schools, Prevent duty, Education, education, prevent duty, enactment, schools, counter-terrorism",
author = "Joel Busher and Tufyal Choudhury and Paul Thomas",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
day = "3",
doi = "10.1080/17539153.2019.1568853",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "440--462",
journal = "Critical Studies on Terrorism",
issn = "1753-9153",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The enactment of the counter-terrorism ‘Prevent duty’ in British schools and colleges

T2 - Beyond reluctant accommodation or straightforward policy acceptance

AU - Busher, Joel

AU - Choudhury, Tufyal

AU - Thomas, Paul

PY - 2019/7/3

Y1 - 2019/7/3

N2 - When Britain imposed the ‘Prevent duty’, a legal duty on education, health and social welfare organisations to report concerns about individuals identified as at-risk of radicalisation, critics argued it would accentuate the stigmatisation of Muslim communities, ‘chill’ free speech, and exacerbate societal securitisation. Based on 70 interviews with educational professionals and a national online survey (n=225), this article examines their perceptions of how the duty has played out in practice. It then provides an explanation for why, contrary to expectations, not only has overt professional opposition been limited, but there has been some evidence of positive acceptance. It is argued that these findings neither simply reflect reluctant policy accommodation nor do they simply reflect straightforward policy acceptance, but rather they comprise the outcome of multi-level processes of policy narration, enactment and adaptation. Three processes are identified as being of particular importance in shaping education professionals’ engagement with the duty: the construction of radicalisation as a significant societal, institutional and personal risk; the construction of continuity between the Prevent duty and existing professional practices; and the responsibilisation of first-line professionals. The conclusion reflects on the wider public and policy implications of these findings.

AB - When Britain imposed the ‘Prevent duty’, a legal duty on education, health and social welfare organisations to report concerns about individuals identified as at-risk of radicalisation, critics argued it would accentuate the stigmatisation of Muslim communities, ‘chill’ free speech, and exacerbate societal securitisation. Based on 70 interviews with educational professionals and a national online survey (n=225), this article examines their perceptions of how the duty has played out in practice. It then provides an explanation for why, contrary to expectations, not only has overt professional opposition been limited, but there has been some evidence of positive acceptance. It is argued that these findings neither simply reflect reluctant policy accommodation nor do they simply reflect straightforward policy acceptance, but rather they comprise the outcome of multi-level processes of policy narration, enactment and adaptation. Three processes are identified as being of particular importance in shaping education professionals’ engagement with the duty: the construction of radicalisation as a significant societal, institutional and personal risk; the construction of continuity between the Prevent duty and existing professional practices; and the responsibilisation of first-line professionals. The conclusion reflects on the wider public and policy implications of these findings.

KW - Prevent

KW - Counter-terrorism

KW - Enactment

KW - Schools

KW - Prevent duty

KW - Education

KW - education

KW - prevent duty

KW - enactment

KW - schools

KW - counter-terrorism

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85060889529&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/17539153.2019.1568853

DO - 10.1080/17539153.2019.1568853

M3 - Article

VL - 12

SP - 440

EP - 462

JO - Critical Studies on Terrorism

JF - Critical Studies on Terrorism

SN - 1753-9153

IS - 3

ER -