权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Empirically explore how practitioners working on the prevent strand of the UK strategy - passing the violent threshold to constitute counter terrorism

实证探讨英国战略预防链的实践者如何跨越暴力门槛构成反恐

基本信息

批准号：
2443517
负责人：
金额：
--
依托单位：
University of Leeds
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Studentship
财政年份：
2020
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2020 至无数据
项目状态：
未结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2443517
关键词：
Empirically explore how practitioners working

项目摘要

This project is concerned with the grey area between extremism and terrorism in the United Kingdom's (UK) Prevent Strategy (HM Government, 2011). It is the result of, inter alia, a conceptual quagmire which has tended to obscure the boundaries between "acceptable" non-violent extremism and "unacceptable" not (yet) violent extremism (Lowe, 2017), with the latter justifiably requiring Prevent involvement for it being a conduit to terrorism. Yet, while academic debate has highlighted a large grey area between the two, chiefly focussing on the need for clearer distinctions between them, there has been a lack of focus on how Prevent practitioners in the local authority and police deal with the dilemma of identifying those who subscribe to the notion of not (yet) violent extremism (Schmid, 2014). This proposed study will fill this gap, narrowing the focus down to empirically explore how Prevent officers in these respective organisations judge an expression as passing the violent threshold needed to reconcile an expression with terrorism and constitute counter-terrorism involvement. This focus will be enabled through the application of the following research questions: 1. How do counter-terrorism practitioners respond to incidents occupying a grey area between extremism and terrorism?2. In responding to those who may be on the cusp of terrorist engagement, what can be deemed as being 'good practice'?3. What are the implications of responding to non-violent extremism through counter-terrorism instruments?

该项目涉及联合王国《预防战略》（女王陛下政府，2011年）中极端主义和恐怖主义之间的灰色地带。除其他外，这是一个概念泥潭的结果，它往往模糊了“可接受的”非暴力极端主义和“不可接受的”非暴力极端主义之间的界限（Lowe，2017），后者无疑需要预防参与，因为它是恐怖主义的渠道。然而，虽然学术辩论突出了两者之间的巨大灰色地带，主要集中在需要更明确地区分它们之间，但一直缺乏关注地方当局和警察中的预防从业人员如何处理识别那些赞同非暴力极端主义概念的人的困境（施密德，2014）。这项拟议的研究将填补这一空白，缩小重点，以实证的方式探讨如何防止官员在这些各自的组织判断一个表达式作为通过所需的暴力阈值，以调和表达与恐怖主义，并构成反恐参与。这一重点将通过以下研究问题的应用实现：1。反恐工作者如何应对占据极端主义和恐怖主义之间灰色地带的事件？2.在回应那些可能处于恐怖主义接触尖端的人时，什么可以被视为“良好做法”？3.通过反恐文书应对非暴力极端主义有何影响？