Model Validation 'Vulnerability for Radicalisation'
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Validating a proposed model regarding radicalisation in secure forensic settings utilising semi-structured interviews with forensic patients
IRAS ID
293071
Contact name
Jane L. Ireland
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
University of Central Lancashire
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier
N/A, N/A
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 6 months, 30 days
Research summary
This research is funded by the University of Central Lancashire. Previous PhD studies highlighted the role of an individual’s social influences and ideology as important factors for radicalisation, particularly in secure forensic settings (SFS). However, less is known about how individual factors like mental health issues or grievance impact on the radicalisation process. Based on previous studies, an explanatory model was proposed for radicalisation in SFS. The focus is the social influences on offenders (e.g. other extremists), while being in SFS, as these are most reliably studied. Individual factors and ideology resulted in inconsistent findings, hence, are optional in the current conceptualisation.
The proposed study aims to validate this model. Hence, a forensic sample is required, where individuals present with mental health problems. Patients who either committed an extremist offence (broadly defined as any violent offence that is reported to have been motivated by some form of ideology) or exhibit extremist tendencies (e.g., overtly racist to other offenders, exhibiting distorted worldview in the form of increase political/religious interest) will be included; the latter will be noted by nursing staff, for example utilising the Vulnerability Assessment Framework (Lloyd & Dean, 2015), which is a 22-item screening list.
A cross-sectional study design will be utilised. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted to explore radicalisation dynamics in SFS and investigate the proposed model. The reasoning to only use a semi-structure lies in the lack of sound empirical evidence for several factors discussed in the literature. Hence, the study design must allow for further individualised exploration to capture the full extent of possible contributing and mitigating factors. Alternatively and in case that the current COVID-19 pandemic is not allowing for safe in-person contact with others, the model will be validated using a narrative analysis/review of case files. Then merely patient consent, not contact is required.
REC name
North West - Greater Manchester South Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
21/NW/0104
Date of REC Opinion
15 Apr 2021
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion