ABSTRACT
Taking into account the history and manifold differences between programs and initiatives working in a field broadly being categorized as ‘intervention,’ ‘counter-radicalization,’ or ‘deradicalization,’ it becomes clear that a comprehensive typology of those programs is necessary. In order to understand different effects, target groups, methods, and actors involved, one needs to recognize the basic characteristics of possible set-ups in order to design, evaluate, and analyze them. So far, no comprehensive typology exists, although different types have been suggested in the literature. Bjørgo and Horgan (2009, p. 252), for example, noted that these programs can be run by governmental or non-governmental (NGOs) agencies. Stone (2015, p. 224) named six different forms of deradicalization programs, although focusing more on the deliverables: education, vocational, socio-cultural, religiousideological, psychological, and extracurricular. Nevertheless, the structural and methodological differences between clearly identifiable types of programs based on empirical evidence (looking at those programs which exist worldwide) is still lacking. In consequence, this chapter offers a first typology of deradicalization and disengagement programs, gives examples for each type, and explains each type’s structure, strengths, weaknesses, and potential target groups. According to Ravndal (2015, p. 5), typologies need to fulfil five criteria in order to be qualitatively sufficient. They need to: (1) clearly define the overarching concept of the typology; (2) specify whether the typology is descriptive or explanatory; (3) describe in detail how the types are (inductively and/ or deductively) constructed; (4) propose an intuitive model or matrix of the typology; and (5) consider a simpler solution with mutually exclusive types. Following this model, the overarching concept of the typology is to show structural similarities and differences of programs designed to ‘deradicalize’ or ‘disengage’ a target group specified as ‘radical’ or ‘extremist.’ As Chapters 2 and 3 have shown, the terms ‘deradicalization’ and ‘disengagement’ are somewhat contested, which goes for the categories of ‘radicals’ or ‘extremists’ too. As noted by Bjørgo and Horgan (2009, p. 3), the term ‘deradicalization’ is oftentimes used to describe any effort to prevent radicalization causing a not insignificant conceptual confusion. For this typology, several key aspects have
been chosen to include or exclude programs from the sample underlying the different categories. First, the program in question needs to be directed by design at individuals or groups who are either self-defined ‘radicals’—i.e., committed to a specified ideology considered to be ‘extremist’—and/or use or advocate for politically motivated violence (such as acts of terrorism), and/ or are official members of a group designated as ‘terrorist’ or ‘extremist’ by a legal authority. Second, these programs need to have the goal of achieving a defined effect directed at reintegrating their target group into their surrounding societies on a long-term basis and eventually altering the above mentioned criteria defining their target group (i.e., group membership, self-definition, advocacy, or use of violence). Third, the programs in question must not use direct violence to achieve that aim-i.e., targeted killingwhich would otherwise mean the program is merely a tool of open and direct warfare. Furthermore, the suggested typology in this chapter is explanatory and aims to not only describe the different types of deradicalization and disengagement programs, but, more importantly, also incorporate a theory about the mechanism and methods they use, the effects on their target groups, difficulties with their performance, as well as strengths and weaknesses resulting from each type’s main characteristics. In addition, this explanatory typology will allow one to draw conclusions about which type of program might be best suited for a specified context, target group, or goal, thereby making it more effective to plan, design, and implement such programs in the long run. Being an inductively won typology, all categories and underlying characteristics are the result of in-depth field studies of deradicalization and disengagement programs around the world (see also Chapter 2 on methods and sources). Figure 5.2 displays the matrix of seven program types. At the end of this chapter, a discussion of potentially mutually exclusive types will be given.
