Aspects of the DCSF (2009) toolkit already fit well within the model of good practice primary prevention developed by Hage et al (2007). Hage et al (2007) recommend that preventative interventions:
• address both the individual and the contextual/systemic factors that contribute to psychological distress and well-being;
• reduce risks as well as promote strengths and well-being; • consider the social justice implications of prevention research;
• promote, and support systemic initiatives that prevent and reduce the incidence of psychological and physical distress and disability;
• strengthen the health and well-being of individuals, families, and communities; • focus on multiple risk factors.
The DSCF (2009) toolkit is guidance for LAs rather than a statutory obligation, so some of the criticisms of the above strategies (such as the developmentally appropriateness of debating current affairs) can, in the case of the current study, be addressed by the LA steering group that commissioned this research. To align preventing violent extremism in the LA more fully with a community psychology approach to primary prevention, there needs to be less
emphasis on professionals as ‘experts’ and greater emphasis on collaboration and consultation with stakeholders (Mackay, 2006). Primary prevention has historically failed to incorporate the voices, insights and experiences of the target population, yet working collaboratively with
communities to promote empowerment is a central tenet of community psychology (Fondacara and Weinberg, 2002). In addition to being an important part of community psychology, The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (1989) highlighted that children have a right to express themselves on any matters affecting them. Despite this there is research to suggest that children are commonly left out of decision- making processes and that more needs to be done to promote young people’s involvement in educative processes (MacConville, 2006). Compliance with the UNCRC is monitored by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, a group of independent international experts on children’s rights (Lundy, 2007). In 2002 the Committee documented its concern that:
‘In education, school children are not systematically consulted in matters that affect them…(the UK Government should) take further steps to promote, facilitate and monitor systematic, meaningful and effective participation of all groups of children in society, including in school’ (as cited in Lundy, 2007, 928).
This research seeks to gain the views of a sample of young people in the LA about violent extremism and their experiences of strengths and difficulties within the different ecosystems that may increase or decrease the likelihood of a young person engaging with an extremist group. If the LA were blindly to implement strategies from the toolkit, this would be without understanding whether these strategies are the best ways of supporting young people locally. Some of the strategies (particularly the school’s role in community grievances and debating current affairs in school) are sensitive and it would be unethical to put an intervention into place without eliciting and considering at least some young people’s views about any perceived potential negative outcomes. One of the key barriers to primary prevention
initiatives is community readiness (Wandersman and Florin, 2003). Researching the views of
young people in this area will give an indication as to whether young people are ready for this type of intervention.
Eliciting the views of some young people in the LA about ways to prevent violent extremism is important in promoting a resilience rather than deficit approach. Some primary prevention interventions are criticised by Cowen (2001) for focusing purely on risk factors, so this research aims to talk to young people about strengths in the community that can be utilised and built upon to support young people: an approach in line with positive psychology (Bernard, 2004).
In line with a community psychology approach, primary prevention should also be
empowering. Rappaport (1987) defines empowerment as both ‘individual determination over one’s life and democratic participation in the life of one’s community’ (Rappaport, 1987, p.121). An empowering primary prevention should therefore gain consent from participants and participants should be actively involved in the design of the intervention and how it is implemented (Zimmerman, 2000). It is not possible to gain consent from every student in the LA about whether they wish to participate in the preventing violent extremism initiative because it has the potential to become a non-statutory embedded part of the curriculum (as has been the case with SEAL). This research aims to take steps towards empowerment by
involving a selection of students in the design and implementation element (as advocated by Zimmerman, 2000). This appears to happen rarely in education (Lundy, 2007) and even Rappaport (1987) neglects the role of talking to children about educative intervention:
‘When such programmes are developed in schools we want to know something about the impact on the teachers, the administrators, the social climate, and the educational policies’ (Rappaport, 1987, p.133).
The current study has been commissioned to work with participants instead of advocating for them, moving away from the monolithic helping mentality (Rapapport, 1987). Feeding back to the students about how their views have changed the way the DCSF (2009) toolkit is being acted upon locally is an essential part of the empowerment process because it can be
psychologically damaging for participants to feel their participation has been tokenistic (Gray and Wilson, 2004). Gaining students’ views on the design of the implementation also fits well with the very nature of the preventing violent extremism initiative that aims to foster a sense of involvement in community life through discussions about current issues and initiatives (DSCF, 2009).
Engaging with schools to work consultatively with students should also raise the profile of the toolkit in schools. In the LA the toolkit was presented to all schools by a counter-terrorist police officer, yet many of the pastoral staff approached for this research had no knowledge of the toolkit. It was hoped that an additional benefit from the research would be to encourage school staff to seek support to start exploring this area and some of the strategies with young people.
It is acknowledged that in addition to eliciting the views of students as stakeholders, research should also be completed to gain teachers’ views about how best to support students in this area and how comfortable they feel in discussing the subject area with students. Teachers will also need to advise on the sustainability and resources that will be needed to support the intervention as this can often be overlooked (Fondacara and Weinberg, 2002) to prevent the
intervention becoming poorly thought out, fragmented and short term, as can be the case with education initiatives (Greenberg et al, 2003).
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY