Radicalisation risk factors revisited: shifting the paradigm of validated measures

Abstract

Terror management research has identified a range of psychological consequences of living with a salient threat of terrorism, including ingroup bias, stereotyping of outgroups and changes in political attitudes (Dunkel, 2002). Additionally, analyses of Western state discourses of terrorism have suggested that they are driven by power relations and vested interests, and identify Muslims as a risky, suspect community (e.g. Coppock & McGovern, 2014). This critical discourse analysis (Van Dijk, 2001) explores the construction of radicalisation risk in the British discourse of terrorism. Three strands of discourse were analysed: political speeches, government documents and academic research underpinning the mandatory assessment of radicalisation risk by all public sector workers. Six themes emerged from the analysis, which were interpreted using terror management theory (TMT; Pyszczynski, 2004) as a theoretical framework, and yielded a triangulated picture of assumptions, beliefs and attitudes underlying the assessment of radicalisation risk in the UK. The findings of the current paper support previous analyses of the discourse of terrorism, and extend research by revealing a lack of criticality in the development of the psychological measure used in the assessment of risk, the ERG 22+. The present study suggests political and policy discourse may exploit the psychological effects of terrorism to maintain and enhance power, while academic research has failed to critically account for power relations and the vested interests of the state. The implications of findings are discussed as are the limitations and strengths.