Understanding extremism in Scotland: public sector practitioner perceptions and views

B. Methodological detail

Ethical considerations

Table 5 below outlines the key ethical issues identified, and the measures that were put in place to mitigate them.

Table 5. Key ethical issues and mitigations

Ethical sensitivity

Ensuring the identity of participants is protected and that their views are not attributed to them

Mitigating actions

Trust in the research process depends on the secure collection, handling and deletion of personal data, and this is particularly important when asking research participants to speak openly about sensitive topics such as extremism. An online format was chosen for the survey, as this typically feels more anonymous and helps respondents feel more comfortable when answering.

Thinks Insight & Strategy is fully compliant with EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) legislation. Explicit, informed consent was obtained from all participants and they were aware of their right to withdraw at any time.

Thinks Insight & Strategy has a robust data security and protection approach in place to ensure that the identity of participants is protected. All outputs were checked thoroughly to ensure that the identity of respondents could not be identified, particularly in cases where the pool of public sector practitioners is smaller and the risk of being identified is higher, such as for public sector practitioners with Prevent-related roles.

Ethical sensitivity

Ensuring the research includes a diverse range of perspectives, and that the public sector practitioners who participate in the research do not represent a biased or minority view

Mitigating actions

A social model of accessibility was adopted for the research. This meant every participant was supported in taking part, regardless of; digital engagement, any special assistance required, mental or physical health conditions or a lack of confidence. For example, participants in the qualitative strand were reminded they could take breaks whenever required and telephone interviews were offered to those who were not comfortable using video-conferencing technology.

In order to hear a diverse range of perspectives, a free-finding method was used to recruit participants for the mini-groups. The free-finding method involved recruiting individuals through a recruitment agency (Taylor McKenzie), using a screener questionnaire. This was used as opposed to wholly relying on the Prevent Sub Group.

(The Prevent Sub Group is a multi-agency governance group that holds the strategic lead for the co-ordination and support of Scotland’s delivery of Prevent. Its membership includes a lead for each of the sectors which, under the Prevent duty, must pay ‘due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism’, including the police, education, prisons, health and local authority sectors.)

Ethical sensitivity

Minimising discomfort for participants, given that public sector practitioners may discuss challenging experiences they have faced as part of their role, and that discussion of extremism in general may also cause anxiety or distress, particularly if topics related to extremism arise such as terrorism and violence more broadly

Mitigating actions

Due to the sensitive nature of this topic, steps were taken to minimise distress, including:

• An online survey method was used, which public sector practitioners could complete in their own time, rather than feeling forced to give a response to a telephone interviewer.
• Participants were assigned an individual, named and primary point of contact at Thinks Insight & Strategy for the duration of the research. Participants were given an information sheet prior to taking part, and a debrief sheet following their participation, which advised them to reach out to the named Thinks Insight & Strategy contact should they have any questions or concerns.
• Sensitive interview techniques were used, including letting people know the structure and content of the interview ahead of the session, and offering regular breaks to avoid participant distress as a result of recounting their experiences.
• Participants were also offered relevant information and support related to the discussion at the end of the session.

Ethical sensitivity

Ensuring the research is conducted in line with Scottish Government COVID-19 restrictions

Mitigating actions

The latest UK Government, Scottish Government and MRS advice in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic was monitored throughout the research. As a result, no face-to-face research was undertaken.

Ethical sensitivity

Ensuring the research does not place unnecessary burden on respondents, and that time and resource requirements placed on organisations and individuals to participate are managed to minimise impacts on other work

Mitigating actions

The following considerations were taken in recognition that the audience for the research were time-poor:

• The qualitative research included mini groups, which took place in the evening after office hours, and in-depth interviews, which could be scheduled to best suit participants’ needs (including outside office hours).
• Some participants (dependent on their sector of work) were incentivised to take part, to recompense them for their time. It was not possible to offer incentives to public sector practitioners working in the Police and Prison sectors. This is because Police Scotland and the Scottish Prisons service have policies against accepting incentives for participation in research.
• The quantitative survey was conducted online, making it easier for public sector practitioners to complete in their own time.

Ethical sensitivity

Ensuring any ethical issues around the use of incentives with public sector workers are managed

Mitigating actions

Offering an incentive to participate is important, particularly as this may be a low salience topic for some of our participants (especially the public sector practitioners without Prevent-related roles) in their daily lives. Incentives also help protect against high drop-out rates.

Public sector practitioners with Prevent-related roles, who are more involved in the Prevent duty may have considered there to be ethical barriers to their participation. These participants were offered the option of a charity donation in place of a personal incentive, or no incentive.

Participants from the Police and those working as Prison Officers were not offered incentives, in line with the policies of Police Scotland and the Scottish Prisons Service.

Ethical sensitivity

Ensuring interviewers and fieldwork are fully briefed and sufficiently trained to conduct data collection and to handle any potentially difficult situations

Mitigating actions

All fieldwork was carried out by members of the Thinks Insight & Strategy project team, who are trained to meet ethical standards. Specifically, they:

• Are DBS checked to enhanced level.
• Receive training at induction, annually and in their ongoing personal development training on the following:

• Data protection and information security.
• Qualitative research skills, (including sensitive interviewing techniques and accessibility and inclusion in the research process).
• Safeguarding.

The team members were also highly experienced and trained in conducting research on sensitive topics, such as child sexual abuse, modern slavery and terrorism.

Ethical sensitivity

Ensuring there are procedures in place to deal with safeguarding concerns

Mitigating actions

Due to the specific risks associated with this project, a comprehensive Safeguarding Policy was in place, which informed staff and associated personnel of their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding. All colleagues received training on safeguarding at induction, annually and in their ongoing personal development training.

To address any unreported Prevent concerns, there was a safeguarding procedure in place to ensure that the researchers would know what to do in the event that a participant said something that could have given rise to a Prevent concern.

Qualitative interview outline

Table 6 below shows the broad outline of the qualitative discussion guide and the topics covered. The guides were adapted for each audience type (with or without Prevent-related roles) as needed.

Table 6. Outline of qualitative discussion guide

Introductions

• A short warm up to get participants thinking about their typical working day and main roles

Views and definitions of extremism

• Associations with extremism
• Participant’s own definition of extremism
• Views on provided definitions
• Difference between extremism and terrorism

Extremism in Scotland

• Extent of the extremism problem in Scotland
• Types of extremism present in Scotland
• Vulnerability to extremism

Experiences of extremism

• Experiences of dealing with extremism, or those vulnerable to extremism
• How to tell if someone is vulnerable to extremism
• What to do when coming across someone vulnerable
• Other job roles in their organisation that might deal with extremism

Understanding and experiences of Prevent

• Familiarity with Prevent duty
• Experiences fulfilling Prevent
• Confidence in fulfilling Prevent
• Opinion on Prevent in Scotland

Wrap up

• Anything else to consider for the research

Quantitative survey outline

Table 7 below shows an outline of the topics covered in the online survey.

Table 7. Outline of topics in online survey

Background and job role

• Employment sector
• Location
• Job title

Experiences of and views on extremism

• Confidence in defining extremism, identifying someone at risk of being drawn into extremism, what to do after identifying someone
• Ranking 4 definitions of extremism
• Extent of the extremism problem in their local area, Scotland, the UK and the rest of the world
• Change of extremism threat over time
• Extent of different types of extremism in Scotland
• Experience of extremism

Experience of and views on Prevent

• Respondents shown description of Prevent
• Extent Prevent is part of their job
• [If indicated familiarity with Prevent] details of experience
• [If indicated familiarity with Prevent] views on effectiveness and favourability of Prevent
• [If indicated familiarity with Prevent] Ranking possible improvements to Prevent

Demographic questions (optional)

• Gender
• Age
• Religion
• Ethnicity