ABSTRACT
Practical methods and tools of deradicalization programs have often been discussed under the ‘what works’ or ‘best practice’ umbrella, present in other fields such as criminology and DDR research. It has been pointed out that the label ‘lessons learned’ in the practical rehabilitation area is used widely without a strong theoretical or empirical backing (e.g., Humphreys & Weinstein, 2007; Susan, 2012). Hence, the question of evaluation and identifying effective tools for deradicalization programs are inherently connected. It is naturally exceptionally difficult to scientifically prove the causality between a given method and the non-existence of a variable-i.e., the return to violence, terrorism, or radicalism-as, potentially, an infinite number of additional unknown external factors could have made the difference for the individual to decide not to return to violence. Nevertheless, based on the premise that ideological change is equally hard to measure, most deradicalization programs have focused on the rate of recidivism as the main factor for claiming success. One example would be the Malaysian government, which claimed to have the ‘best’ deradicalization program in the world, based on the 97 percent rehabilitation rate of its graduates (MI, 2016). Albeit, the fact that using recidivism to demonstrate success of a deradicalization program has some significant problems (see Chapter 7 on effects and effectiveness in more detail), another more important aspect deserves attention: how did these ‘successful’ programs achieve their low rates of recidivism? What is it exactly that most deradicalization programs do with their participants? Are there methods that have established themselves as standard procedures in deradicalization and are there theoretical or empirical indications, if not evidence, for their effectiveness? Naturally, the only scientifically safe way to identify such methods would be to conduct experiments with control groups and selective treatment, as well as placebo or slightly varied methods across specified time frames and with close supervision in addition to aftercare monitoring. As consciously risky for the control group to revert back to terrorism and violence would be, as well as highly unethical and dangerous not just for the participants but also the potential victims, quasi-experimental or randomized treatment has been suggested instead (e.g., Humphreys & Weinstein, 2007; Kruglanski, Gelfand, Bélanger, Gunaratna, & Hettiarachchi, 2014). However,
this present chapter looks at those tools and practical methods most commonly employed by deradicalization programs around the world. After collecting and discussing the theoretical literature on what ‘should’ and ‘could’ work, as well as which failures to avoid, these methods and tools will be presented one after another in regard to what deradicalization programs hope to achieve by their implementation and whether or not there is any sound basis for them. As with many other aspects in deradicalization, criminology and DDR research are the most valuable fields to look for known and well-established mechanisms and tools. It seems only natural that-at least in the area of disengagement-focused programs-desistance and rehabilitation of ‘ordinary’ criminals would provide the best starting point to identify those methods with a high probability of resulting in a positive effect. However, when advancing to the field of ideological reversal-deradicalization in its original sensemany programs have more or less developed and employed mixed methods, based on cultural, political, theological, or legal national contexts. Sometimes a method has been determined from the beginning of the program as the only solution to the problem of radicalization (e.g., theological debate), as the official political understanding dictated it as such (e.g., a misguided understanding of Islam). In consequence, this chapter aims to identify the standard tools used in this field and to discuss them in regard to their theoretical and practical underpinnings. Although it is possible to deduce some arguments for questioning the effects of certain methods, it is not the aim to judge the success of these tools. Without comprehensive evaluations and comparative studies, it is not possible to assess the practical value of these methods. In addition, it needs to be recognized that the author himself worked as deradicalization counselor for many years and used some of the tools presented below. In many cases, the practical needs of a case dictate the need to improvise and quickly adapt to a certain situational change by introducing a new intervention. Without the time to conduct necessary experiments, literature studies, or pre-tests, counselors and mentors are oftentimes forced to act on a working hypothesis and ‘hunch’ of what might work. In addition, practical deradicalization workalthough this might seem paradoxical-depends on trial and error approaches. If a certain intervention in a case does not achieve the results aimed for, other methods are tried out. In general, the best way to prepare a program and counselor for this task is to provide a sound understanding of the theoretical background behind deradicalization work, high quality training, and regular assessments. Like in other social work environments, flexibility and creativity are highly valuable assets for case managers, who need to constantly devise new strategies and tactics. Dynamic changes and developments must be taken into account as well. It is very unlikely that the same set of tools will work for every case indeterminately.
