Radicalisation studies has emerged as an interdisciplinary field that aims to develop a nuanced, holistic understanding of the multidimensional process of radicalisation in contemporary societies. This field integrates theoretical and methodological insights from various disciplines, including sociology, psychology, political science, international relations, cultural anthropology, religious studies, and security studies (Neumann, 2013; Sedgwick, 2010; Heath-Kelly et al., 2015). By synthesising diverse scholarly perspectives, radicalisation studies provide an evolving conceptual framework for examining how and why individuals adopt radical ideologies and turn to extremism.
A core defining feature of radicalisation studies is the shift away from viewing radicalisation solely as an individualised psychological process driven by personal pathologies. In contrast, contemporary scholarship understands radicalisation as a complex sociopolitical phenomenon involving the interplay of individual motivations, interpersonal relationships, group dynamics, and structural factors (McCauley & Moskalenko, 2008; Hafez & Mullins, 2015). For instance, the significance of collective identities, relative deprivation, and moral disengagement as psychological mechanisms is analysed in relation to broader social conditions, political conflicts, and state policies that may enable violent extremism (Atran, 2010; Moghaddam, 2005).
Radicalisation studies is firmly grounded in critical social theory, which emphasises the need to contextualise radicalisation within systemic forms of injustice, discrimination, political repression, and socioeconomic exclusion that certain minority groups confront (Kundnani, 2012; Elshimi, 2017). Contemporary research analyses how radical ideologies emerge as a response to grievances over perceived experiences of injustice, inequality, and marginalisation. Consequently, the field devotes substantial focus to critiquing counterterrorism policies and practices that may exacerbate processes of radicalisation by further alienating and isolating affected populations (Richards, 2021; Mythen et al., 2017).
Methodologically, radicalisation studies utilises a mix of qualitative and quantitative techniques to develop multi-dimensional insights into radicalisation. In-depth qualitative methods like interviews and ethnography provide nuanced accounts of the personal backgrounds, narratives, motivations, and experiences of radicalised individuals and groups (Horgan, 2008; Lyons-Padilla et al., 2015), complemented by quantitative large-scale data analysis to identify broader cultural, economic, political, and social patterns, risk factors, and network connections (Sageman, 2014; Vertigans & Sutton, 2006). Advanced computational techniques are also increasingly used to analyse the complex relational dynamics of radical networks and online spaces (Gill et al., 2017; Kaati & Omer, 2017).
Conceptually, radicalisation studies strives to synthesise mechanisms from across disciplinary boundaries into a multidimensional framework encompassing psychological, cultural, economic, political, and social dimensions. Interdisciplinary theories like universality of sacred values from anthropology, collective action framing from sociology, and complex network analysis from computational sciences are being used more and more in modern scholarship (Della Porta, 2013; Atran, 2016; Gill et al., 2017). Such an integrated framework enables comprehensive explanations of drivers, enablers, and processes of radicalisation at the micro, meso, and macro levels of analysis.
It is also thought that questioning the assumptions that are made in traditional terrorism studies and policy discussions is an important part of getting more objective and solid knowledge (Heath-Kelly, 2013; Kundnani, 2009). Problematizing governmental discourses and moving beyond Eurocentric perspectives have allowed for more nuanced understandings of context-specific radicalisation processes among diverse groups globally. This reflexive, decolonial approach remains at the vanguard of radicalisation studies (Bhatia & Ghanem, 2017; Romaniuk, 2015).
With its interdisciplinary nature and critical perspectives, radicalisation studies provide vital insights into effectively addressing radicalisation through public policies and interventions focusing on fostering inclusion, protecting human rights, and mitigating root causes like political conflicts, discrimination, and socioeconomic grievances (Githens-Mazer & Lambert 2010; Romaniuk 2015). The field contributes significantly to moving beyond reactive securitised responses to prevent radicalisation through progressive approaches. In evolving as a field at the intersection of various disciplines, radicalisation studies provides extensive scope for further enriching scholarly understanding and formulating evidence-based policies regarding this multifaceted phenomenon.
References
Atran, S. (2010). Talking to the enemy: Violent extremism, sacred values, and what it means to be human. Penguin.
Atran, S. (2016). The devoted actor: unconditional commitment and intractable conflict across cultures. Current Anthropology, 57(S13), S192-S203.
Bhatia, K., & Ghanem, H. (2017). How do education and unemployment affect support for violent extremism? Evidence from eight Arab countries. Global Economy & Development Working Paper 102. Brookings Institution.
Della Porta, D. (2013). Clandestine political violence. Cambridge University Press.
Elshimi, M. S. (2017). De-radicalisation in the UK Prevent strategy: Security, identity and religion. Routledge.
Gill, P., Corner, E., Thornton, A., & Conway, M. (2017). What are the roles of the internet in terrorism? Measuring online behaviours of convicted UK terrorists. VOX-Pol Network of Excellence.
Githens-Mazer, J., & Lambert, R. (2010). Why conventional wisdom on radicalization fails: the persistence of a failed discourse. International Affairs, 86(4), 889-901.
Hafez, M., & Mullins, C. (2015). The radicalization puzzle: A theoretical synthesis of empirical approaches to homegrown extremism. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 38(11), 958-975.
Heath-Kelly, C. (2013). Counter-terrorism and the counterfactual: Producing the ‘radicalisation’ discourse and the UK PREVENT strategy. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 15(3), 394-415.
Horgan, J. (2008). From profiles to pathways and roots to routes: Perspectives from psychology on radicalization into terrorism. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 618(1), 80-94.
Kaati, L., & Omer, E. (2017, May). Detecting multiple aliases in social media networks using stylometric analysis. In 2017 European intelligence and security informatics conference (EISIC) (pp. 172-175). IEEE.
Kundnani, A. (2009). Spooked: How not to prevent violent extremism. Institute of Race Relations.
Kundnani, A. (2012). Radicalisation: the journey of a concept. Race & Class, 54(2), 3-25.
Lyons-Padilla, S., Gelfand, M. J., Mirahmadi, H., Farooq, M., & van Egmond, M. (2015). Belonging nowhere: Marginalization & radicalization risk among Muslim immigrants. Behavioral Science & Policy, 1(2), 1-12.
McCauley, C., & Moskalenko, S. (2008). Mechanisms of political radicalization: Pathways toward terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 20(3), 415-433.
Moghaddam, F. M. (2005). The staircase to terrorism: A psychological exploration. American Psychologist, 60(2), 161-169.
Mythen, G., Walklate, S., & Peatfield, E. J. (2017). Assembling and deconstructing radicalisation in PREVENT: A case of policy-based evidence making?. Critical Social Policy, 37(2), 180-201.
Neumann, P. R. (2013). The trouble with radicalization. International Affairs, 89(4), 873-893.
Neumann, P., & Kleinmann, S. (2013). How rigorous is radicalization research?. Democracy and Security, 9(4), 360-382.
Richards, A. (2021). Examining the assumptions underpinning counter-radicalisation policy. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 14(2), 320-338.
Romaniuk, P. (2015). Does CVE work? Lessons learned from the global effort to counter violent extremism. Global Center on Cooperative Security.
Sageman, M. (2014). The stagnation in terrorism research. Terrorism and Political Violence, 26(4), 565-580.
Schuurman, B., Grol, P., & Flower, S. (2019). Converts and Islamist terrorism: An introduction. ICCT Research Paper.
Sedgwick, M. (2010). The concept of radicalization as a source of confusion. Terrorism and Political Violence, 22(4), 479-494.
Vertigans, S. (2011). The sociology of terrorism: People, places and processes. Routledge.
Vertigans, S., & Sutton, P. W. (2006). Back to the future: Islamic terrorism, critical theory and the sociological imagination. Contemporary Politics, 12(3), 221-238.