Psychosocial processes and intervention strategies behind Islamic deradicalization: a scoping review Cátia Moreira de Carvalho, Isabel Rocha Pinto, Luís Filipe Azevedo, Alexandre Guerreiro, Mariana Reis Barbosa, Marta Pinto Submitted to the Coordinating Group of: Crime and Justice Education Disability International Development Nutrition Social Welfare Methods Knowledge Translation and Implementation Other: Plans to co-register: No Yes Cochrane Other Maybe Date submitted: Date revision submitted: Approval date: 1 The Campbell Collaboration www.campbellcollaboration.org
Title of the review Psychosocial processes and intervention strategies behind Islamic deradicalization: a scoping review Background There are many possible meanings for radicalization, but most of the relevant definitions can be characterized with social psychological distinctions among belief, feeling, and behavior (McCauley & Moskalenko, 2008). According to these authors, radicalization means change in beliefs, feelings, and behaviors in directions that increasingly justify intergroup violence and demand sacrifice in defense of the ingroup. To the interest of deradicalization, it is the radicalization of behavior that is of most practical interest (McCauley & Moskalenko, 2008). Approximately 15,000 foreign fighters are deemed to be in Syria and Iraq (Mehra, 2016). According to her, in the beginning of 2016, several countries in the European Union have reported a rising number of returning foreign terrorist fighters from Syria and Iraq. With regards to a study commissioned by the Netherlands National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism (2016), 30% of foreign fighters who have left from the European Union are estimated to have returned and to be involved in planning, recruiting, or carrying out attacks. This clearly demonstrates the ability of terrorist organizations, such as ISIS, to mobilize returned foreign terrorist fighters and to involve homegrown extremists (Mehra, 2016). Moreover, the wave of radicalization rising across the globe and the effective dangers it poses to world s security and stability is a clear sign of the urgency of counterradicalization and deradicalization measures (Kruglansky et al, 2014). According to these authors, this raises a number of fundamental questions concerning the nature of deradicalization, the process of deradicalizing, and the relation between radicalization and deradicalization. There have been some important contributions in the past decades, but today little is known about what triggers the individual to abandon terrorism (Horgan, 2009). Consequently, there is not available knowledge that may inform policy-makers on how to critically think about what could be developed to facilitate or promote deradicalization (Horgan, 2009). This way, this scoping review will assess studies related to Islamic deradicalization and its main dynamics, programmes and strategies. It is very important to map, gather, analyse and critically appraise knowledge produced on this topic in order to understand which are the main deradicalization processes and practices, results achieved and actors involved. This 2 The Campbell Collaboration www.campbellcollaboration.org
way, this research will inform policy-makers and professionals working on this field on strategic decisions to approach the problem. The main objectives of this scoping review are to understand/describe programmes being implemented to deradicalize Islamic extremists; experiences of self-deradicalization, what descriptors of are being used to address these processes, socio-demographic characteristics of those being subjected to interventions, key findings described and gaps in the literature. Objectives - Which are the deradicalization practices and programmes being implemented and their main characteristics? - Which are the known main processes and motives leading to deradicalization or selfderadicalization and challenges associated? - Which are the documented characteristics of the population involved in these programmes? - What are the key findings of the studies analysed, namely on the impact of the interventions implemented to deradicalize? - What are the existing gaps in literature? Existing reviews N/A Population The population taken in consideration in this review are the radical Muslims that could be subjected to deradicalization programmes or strategies. Concept The concept under consideration is Islamic deradicalization. According to Clutterbuck (2015), deradicalization relates to the methods and techniques used to undermine and reverse the completed radicalization process, thereby reducing the potential risk to society from terrorism. Context The context is global, since there are programmes implemented in several countries and in multiples settings. Being a scoping review, the main aim is to map the existing production. 3 The Campbell Collaboration www.campbellcollaboration.org
References Abbas, T. & Siddique, A. (2012). Perceptions of the processes of radicalisation and deradicalisation among British South Asian Muslims in a post-industrial city. Social Identities, 18(1), 119-134. doi: 0.1080/13504630.2011.629519 Alonso, R. (2011). Why Do Terrorists Stop? Analyzing Why ETA Members Abandon or Continue with Terrorism. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 34, 696-716. doi: 10.1080/1057610X.2011.594944 Armborst, A. (2014). Radicalisation and de-radicalisation of social movements: The comeback of political Islam? Crime Law and Social Change, 62, 235-255. doi: 10.1007/s10611-013-9464-8 Ashour, O. (2010). Online De-Radicalization? Countering Violent Extremist Narratives: Message, Messenger and Media Strategy. Perspectives on Terrorism, 4(6), 15-19 Akbarzadeh, S. (2013). Investing in Mentoring and Educational Initiatives: The Limits of De- Radicalisation Programmes in Australia. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 33(4), 451-463. doi: 10.1080/13602004.2013.866347 Bjorgo, T. (2011). Dreams and disillusionment: engagement in and disengagement from militant extremists groups. Crime Law and Social Change, 55, 277-285. doi: 10.1007/s10611-011-9282-9 Blaydes, L. & Rubin, L. (2008). Ideological Reorientation and Counterterrorism: Confronting Militant Islam in Egypt. Terrorism and Political Violence, 20(4), 461-479. doi: 10.1080/09546550802257168 Bubolz, B. F. & Simi, P. (2015). Leaving the World of Hate: Life-Course Transitions and Self- Change. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(12), 1588-1608. doi: 10.1177/0002764215588814 Clutterbuck, L. (2015). Deradicalization Programs and Counterterrorism: A Perspective on the Challenges and Benefits. The Middle East Institute. Retrieved from: http://www.mei.edu/content/deradicalization-programs-and-counterterrorismperspective-challenges-and-benefits Cragin, K. R. (2014). Resisting Violent Extremism: A Conceptual Model for Non- Radicalization. Terrorism and Political Violence, 26(2), 337-353. doi.10.1080/09546553.2012.714820 Dechesne, M. (2011). Deradicalization: not soft, but strategic. Crime Law and Social Change, 55, 287-292. doi: 10.1007/s10611-011-9283-8 Demant, F. & De Graaf, B. (2010). How to Counter Radical Narratives: Dutch Deradicalization Policy in the Case of Mollucan and Islamic Radicals. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 33, 408-428. doi: 10.1080/10576101003691549 4 The Campbell Collaboration www.campbellcollaboration.org
Drevon, J. (2015). Assessing Islamist Armed Group s De-Radicalization in Egypt. A Journal of Social Justice, 27, 296-303. doi: 10.1080/10402659.2015.1063371 Dugas, M. & Kruglanski, A. (2014). The Quest for Significance Model of Radicalization: Implications for the Management of Terrorist Detainees. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 32, 423-439. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2122 Ganor, B. & Falk, O. (2013). De-Radicalization in Israel s Prison System. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 36, 116-131. doi: 10.1080/1057610X.2013.747071 Greenberg, K. J. (2016). The Annals of the American Academy, 668, 166-179. doi: 10.1177/0002716216672635 Gunaratna, R. & Ali, M. B. (2009). De-Radicalization Initiatives in Egypt: A Preliminary Insight. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 32, 277-291. doi: 10.1080/10576100902750562 Horgan, J. (2014). Deradicalization or disengagement? A process in need of clarity and a counterterrorism initiative in need of evaluation. Revista de Psicología Social, 24(2), 291-298. doi: 10.1174/021347409788041408 Horgan, J. & Braddock, K. (2010). Rehabilitating the Terrorists?: Challenges in Assessing the Effectiveness of De-Radicalization Programs. Terrorism and Political Violence, 22(2), 267-291. doi: 10.1080/09546551003594748 Jones, C. R. & Morales, R. S. (2012). Integration versus Segregation: A Preliminary Examination of Philippine Correctional Facilities for De-Radicalization. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 35, 211-228. doi: 10.1080/1057610X.2012.648157 Kropiunigg, U. (2013). Framing Radicalization and Deradicalization: A Case Study from Saudi Arabia. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 69(2), 97-117. Kruglanski, A.; Gelfand, M.; Bélanger, J.; Sheveland, A.; Hetiarachchi, M.; Gunaratna, R. (2014). The Psychology of Radicalization and Deradicalization: How Significance Quest Impacts Violent Extremism. Advances in Political Psychology, 35, 69-93. doi: 10.1111/pops.12163 Kruglanski, A.; Gelfand, M. & Gunaratna, R. (2010). Detainee Deradicalization: A Challenge for Psychological Science. Association for Psychological Science, 23(1). Retrieved from: http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/detaineederadicalization#.wnwkhritgu4 Porges, M. L. (2010). Deradicalisation, the Yemeni Way. Survival, 52(2), 27-33. doi: 10.1080/00396331003764553 Schmid, A. P. (2013). Radicalisatio, De-Radicalisation, Counter-Radicalisation: A Conceptual Discussion and Literature Review. International Centre for Counter-Terrorism. Retrieved from: https://icct.nl/publication/radicalisation-de-radicalisation-counterradicalisation-a-conceptual-discussion-and-literature-review/ Schmid, A. P. & Price, E. (2011). Selected literature on radicalization and the deradicalization of terrorists: Monographs, Edited Volumes, Grey Literature and Prime 5 The Campbell Collaboration www.campbellcollaboration.org
Articles published since the 1960s. Crime Law and Social Change, 55, 337-348. doi: 10.1007/s10611-011-9287-4 Solomon, H. (2014). Combating Islamist radicalisation in South Africa, African Security Review, (23(1), 17-33. doi: 10.1080/10246029.2013.862171 Veldhuis, T. (2012). Designing Rehabilitation and Reintegration Programmes for Violent Extremist Offenders: A Realist Approach. International Centre for Counter- Terrorism. Retrieved from: https://icct.nl/publication/designing-rehabilitation-andreintegration-programmes-for-violent-extremist-offenders-a-realist-approach/ Veldhuis, T. & Kessels, E. (2013). Thinking before Leaping: The Need for More and Structural Data Analysis in Detention and Rehabilitation of Extremist Offenders. International Centre for Counter-Terrorism. Retrieved from: https://www.icct.nl/download/file/icct-veldhuis-kessels-thinking-before-leaping- February-2013.pdf Williams, M. J. & Lindsey, S. M. (2014). A social psychological critique of the Saudi terrorism risk reduction initiative. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20(2), 135-151. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2012.749474 Review authors Lead review author: The lead author is the person who develops and co-ordinates the review team, discusses and assigns roles for individual members of the review team, liaises with the editorial base and takes responsibility for the on-going updates of the review. Address: City, State, Province or County: Cátia Moreira de Carvalho Dr Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences of University of Porto Rua Alfredo Allen s/n Porto Post code: 4200-135 Phone: +351 910 626 857 catiacarvalho@fpce.up.pt 6 The Campbell Collaboration www.campbellcollaboration.org
Co-authors: Address: City, State, Province or County: Isabel Rocha Pinto Professor Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences of University of Porto & Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon Rua Alfredo Allen, s/n Porto Post code: 4200-135 Phone: +351 936 079 722 ipinto@fpce.up.pt Address: City, State, Province or County: Luís Filipe Azevedo Professor Faculty of Medicine, of university of Porto, Department of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences (MEDCIDS) & Center for Health Technology and Services Research (CINTESIS) & Cochrane Rua Dr. Plácido Costa, s/n Porto Post code: 4200-319 Phone: +351 225 513 622 lazevedo@med.up.pt Address: Alexandre Guerreiro Dr University of Lisbon, School of Law Alameda da Universidade 7 The Campbell Collaboration www.campbellcollaboration.org
City, State, Province or County: Lisbon Post code: 1649-014 Phone: +351 912 288 000 alexandretguerreiro@gmail.com Mariana Reis Barbosa PhD Center for Studies in Human Development, Faculty of Education and Psychology. Catholic University of Address: Avenida Conde D. Henrique, 24 City, State, Province or County: Braga, Post code: 4700-214 Phone: +351 939 697 208 mbarbosa@porto.ucp.pt Address: City, State, Province or County: Marta Pinto Professor Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences of University of Porto & CINTESIS Rua Alfredo Allen, s/n Porto Post code: 4200-135 Phone: +351 918702479 martadesousapinto@gmail.com 8 The Campbell Collaboration www.campbellcollaboration.org
Roles and responsibilities Please give a brief description of content and methodological expertise within the review team. It is recommended to have at least one person on the review team who has content expertise, at least one person who has methodological expertise and at least one person who has statistical expertise. It is also recommended to have one person with information retrieval expertise. Please note that this is the recommended optimal review team composition. Content: Alexandre Guerreiro, Mariana Barbosa Methodological expertise and content: Marta Pinto Systematic review methods: Luís Azevedo Statistical analysis: Isabel Rocha Pinto and Luís Azevedo Funding This scoping review is not funded and it is not planned to apply for funding. Potential conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest since none of the authors have been involved in primary research on this topic, nor in prior published reviews. Preliminary timeframe Date you plan to submit a draft protocol: August 2017 Date you plan to submit a draft review: December 2017 9 The Campbell Collaboration www.campbellcollaboration.org
AUTHOR DECLARATION Authors responsibilities By completing this form, you accept responsibility for preparing, maintaining, and updating the review in accordance with Campbell Collaboration policy. The Coordinating Group will provide as much support as possible to assist with the preparation of the review. A draft protocol must be submitted to the Coordinating Group within one year of title acceptance. If drafts are not submitted before the agreed deadlines, or if we are unable to contact you for an extended period, the Coordinating Group has the right to de-register the title or transfer the title to alternative authors. The Coordinating Group also has the right to de-register or transfer the title if it does not meet the standards of the Coordinating Group and/or the Campbell Collaboration. You accept responsibility for maintaining the review in light of new evidence, comments and criticisms, and other developments, and updating the review every five years, when substantial new evidence becomes available, or, if requested, transferring responsibility for maintaining the review to others as agreed with the Coordinating Group. Publication in the Campbell Library The support of the Coordinating Group in preparing your review is conditional upon your agreement to publish the protocol, finished review, and subsequent updates in the Campbell Library. The Campbell Collaboration places no restrictions on publication of the findings of a Campbell systematic review in a more abbreviated form as a journal article either before or after the publication of the monograph version in Campbell Systematic Reviews. Some journals, however, have restrictions that preclude publication of findings that have been, or will be, reported elsewhere and authors considering publication in such a journal should be aware of possible conflict with publication of the monograph version in Campbell Systematic Reviews. Publication in a journal after publication or in press status in Campbell Systematic Reviews should acknowledge the Campbell version and include a citation to it. Note that systematic reviews published in Campbell Systematic Reviews and co-registered with the Cochrane Collaboration may have additional requirements or restrictions for co-publication. Review authors accept responsibility for meeting any co-publication requirements. I understand the commitment required to undertake a Campbell review, and agree to publish in the Campbell Library. Signed on behalf of the authors: Form completed by: Date: 10 The Campbell Collaboration www.campbellcollaboration.org