The huge growth in expenditure on counter-extremism and counter-terrorism policy post 9/11 (Dawson & Guinnessy, 2002; Lum, Kennedy, & Sherley, 2006; Silke, 2004) has seen buzzwords such as “resilience” integrated without clear framing or the underpinning of empirical evidence. The issue addressed by the current study is twofold: the framing of resilience within policy is not such that it clearly relates to extremism and, the subsequent lack of understanding that exists on the relationships between the 3 levels of resilience under this framing. The National Resilience Scale (Kimhi, Goroshit, & Eshel, 2013) is applied alongside measures of community and individual resilience to test the hypothesis that all three levels would positively correlate with one another. The hypothesis was supported in study 1, but not study 2, with community resilience negatively correlating with both individual and national resilience. The implications of this conceptual framework are discussed, primarily the impact on contemporary policy, specifically around extremism and terrorism.
|Number of pages||14|
|Journal||Journal of Community Psychology|
|Early online date||12 Mar 2018|
|Publication status||Published - 1 Jul 2018|
FingerprintDive into the research topics of 'Understanding the three levels of resilience: Implications for countering extremism'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.
- Department of Psychology - Professor
- School of Human and Health Sciences
- Secure Societies Institute - Director
- Behavioural Research Centre - Associate Member