ABSTRACT
Radicalization provides a number of academic and practitioner challenges; these are conceptual, analytical, and practical and are framed methodologically around the desire to better understand the concept of radicalism within political thought. The premise for understanding radicalism is first reflected in the differentiation between nonviolent and violent radicalism and second in the propensity of policymakers in the UK and practitioners working in a multiagency setting to accept a binary approach associated with ‘us and them’ thinking. In addition, those in practitioner roles, despite a lack of training and skills are expected to successfully intervene where radicalized individuals are subject to state engagement. Drawing on contemporary studies of practitioners on the one hand and radical activists on the other, the study concludes by documenting the ongoing problems with radicalization and identifies that too few studies consider the active promotion of violence as a focal point for researchers’ attention. When thinking about the differentiation between violent and nonviolent forms of radicalization, a great deal of academic energy is expended on broad spectra of belief, a few of which have been established as precursors of violence. There is no doubt that radicalization has validity and is a real concern for state agencies and multiagency formations.
