Understanding extremism in Scotland: public sector practitioner perceptions and views

3. Understanding extremism

3.1. Introduction

This section addresses the following research questions:

• How do public sector practitioners working to deliver Prevent in Scotland define and understand extremism?
• How far do public sector practitioners’ understandings of extremism in Scotland align with definitions and categorisations adopted in other contexts?
• What are public sector practitioners’ views on the boundaries of extremism? For example, when does an act or behaviour cross the threshold into extremism?
• Do public sector practitioners working in different areas of Scotland or with different communities diverge in how they understand and perceive extremism?

This section will first cover the initial associations public sector practitioners made with extremism, followed by an exploration of public sector practitioners’ confidence in defining extremism, their own definitions of extremism, their views on factors leading people to become vulnerable to extremism, their responses to prompted definitions of extremism, their understanding of extremism in relation to terrorism and hate crime and, finally, conclusions relating to this section.

3.2. Initial associations with extremism

At the very start of the qualitative discussions, participants were asked ‘What comes to mind when you think of extremism?’, and to define extremism in their own terms.

Terror incidents, particularly related to Islamist extremism, were the most frequent associations with extremism, particularly for public sector practitioners without Prevent-related roles, who often did not have experience of extremism from their work. This suggests primary associations with extremism, especially for those without personal experience of it, were often shaped by the most severe examples of violent extremism, such as those reported in the media.

Beyond associating extremism with high profile acts of terrorism, public sector practitioners had a range of other associations. More common associations included:

• Specific groups or individuals (Al Qa’ida, IRA, Shamima Begum, Bader Meinhof gang, extreme right-wing groups)
• Vulnerability
• Violence
• Religion
• Manipulation
• Radicalisation

Slightly less common associations included:

• Political views
• Islamist extremism
• Aggression
• Forceful with ideas
• Extreme behaviours
• Obsessive behaviours
• Domestic violence
• Stalking
• Shootings
• Anti-law

There was a difference in associations raised by practitioners with and without Prevent-related roles in the qualitative sample. Those with a Prevent-related role were more likely to discuss extremist ideologies, while those without a Prevent-related role were more likely to discuss specific acts of terrorism.

3.3. Confidence in defining extremism

The survey asked respondents how confident they were that they understood what is meant by the term ‘extremism’. As displayed in Figure 1, the majority of survey participants (61%) felt ‘fairly confident’ that they knew ‘what is meant by the term extremism’, and nearly three in ten (28%) felt ‘very confident’.

Q4. How confident, if at all, are you that you know the following? ‘What is meant by the term ‘extremism’.’

Base: All respondents, n=492; Practitioners with Prevent non-managerial roles, n=350; Practitioners with Prevent managerial roles, n=142

However, while a high level of net confidence (i.e., combination of ‘very confident’ and ‘fairly confident’ responses) was observed across roles and sectors in the survey, the analysis of survey findings has focused on those self-describing as ‘very confident’ as a benchmark for confidence in knowing what is meant by the term extremism, rather than including those who also describe themselves as ‘fairly confident’.

The reason for this is because of the overconfidence effect, a well-established bias whereby people tend to report higher levels of confidence in their knowledge than their objective level of knowledge (Fischhoff, Slovic, Lichtenstein, 1977). The applicability of this bias to this research was substantiated by findings from the qualitative research, where the difference in knowledge of extremism between public sector practitioners identifying as ‘very confident’ compared with ‘fairly confident’ was more stark than the difference between those identifying as ‘fairly confident’ and ‘not very confident’.

In the survey, public sector practitioners with Prevent managerial roles (i.e., responsible for managing Prevent concerns) were more likely to self-describe as being very confident (42%, compared with 22% in Prevent non-managerial roles). Additionally, public sector practitioners with experience of Prevent in their roles were more likely to select they feel very confident (35%, compared with 24% without experience).

Q4. How confident, if at all, are you that you know the following? ‘What is meant by the term ‘extremism’.’

Base: All respondents, n=492; Police Scotland, n=74; Scottish Prisons Service, n=85; Local authorities and social work, n=99; Education, n=93; Health and social care, n=141.

Respondents in the police and prison sectors had higher levels of reported confidence than other sectors (43% and 35% very confident, respectively), with less than a quarter (24%) of public sector practitioners in the education sector saying they feel very confident they knew what is meant by extremism. This is despite the fact that public sector practitioners in the education sector were the most likely to report experience of Prevent in their roles, which is covered in more detail in section 5.

3.4. Defining extremism in their own words

In the qualitative research, public sector practitioners were prompted to define extremism in their own words, which many found difficult to do. Many participants readily admitted that they found it difficult to define, even when they gave the impression of confidence in being able to answer other questions about extremism.

“It’s difficult to define but we know what it is when we see it. We would recognise it.”

(Practitioner without a Prevent-related role, Further / Higher education, Mini focus group)

Public sector practitioners with more experience of extremism (such as those with Prevent-related roles) often immediately started to define extremism when asked what they associate with the term, and were more confident in doing so when prompted than those who did not identify as having experiences of extremism.

The main difficulty with defining extremism appeared to be the broad range of beliefs and behaviours that it could potentially cover. The key concepts practitioners referred to in these discussions are listed below.

Public sector practitioners’ perceptions of extremist beliefs

Participants found it particularly difficult to identify the exact point at which a belief becomes ‘extreme’. Many defined extremism as ascribing to beliefs or group identities (e.g., political, religious) to an ‘extreme’ level, beyond what is considered ‘average’, ‘normal’ or ‘mainstream’, but struggled to specify what an ‘extreme’ level would be.

Often, the way public sector practitioners distinguished whether a belief was extreme or not was whether violence was used to express those beliefs, or justify their ideological aims. For example, holding a belief that other views or ideologies are so wrong as to warrant violent action against people with different views or ideologies, or supporting the use of violence in aid of their beliefs.

Public sector practitioners’ perceptions of extremist behaviours

Therefore, the use of acts of physical violence, or advocacy on behalf of people who commit acts of violence, was the most common feature of definitions of extremist behaviours. Attempts to use force or violence to promote beliefs, or recruiting or radicalising others to commit violence were seen as clearly extremist behaviours.

The second most common behaviour seen as extreme was expressing ‘extreme’ opinions or beliefs, although as noted above, defining extremist beliefs (aside from those that advocated for violence) was difficult for public sector practitioners. Public sector practitioners felt that this could include joining groups or events that support those beliefs.

Some public sector practitioners also mentioned broadly ‘obsessive’ behaviour (e.g., stalking) and a sense of secrecy (i.e., keeping extreme views to themselves) as extreme behaviours. However, these were discussed less than other behaviours.

“Forcing one’s views upon others. Getting them to believe their views are better, ‘come onto my way of thinking.’”

(Practitioner without a Prevent-related role, Police Scotland, Mini focus group)

“Viewpoints that either predispose or encourage violent actions against sectors of the general public.”

(Practitioner with a Prevent-related role, Health and social care, In-depth interview)

“Extremism is a reaction against rule of law and the kind of accepted standards of society. And I would say it’s usually tied to some sort of ideology.”

(Practitioner with a Prevent-related role, Primary / secondary education, In-depth interview)

3.5. Views on factors leading people to becoming vulnerable to extremism

In contrast with the difficulty public sector practitioners had in defining extremism in the qualitative discussions, most found it easy to articulate why someone might become vulnerable to extremism when asked what factors they believe might lead to this.

Views on the factors that make someone vulnerable to extremism were very similar between participants who had experiences of extremism in their job role and those who did not, but for those without experience, views about who is vulnerable often appeared to be based on their perceptions of the characteristics of someone who is more vulnerable generally, such as being isolated, lonely or living in disadvantaged conditions, rather than being based on risk factors that specifically make someone vulnerable to extremism. Notably, however, research has demonstrated associations between these factors and vulnerability to extremism (e.g., Pfundmair et al., 2022; Bhui et al., 2014).

Participants generally cited a list of interlinked factors as influencing someone’s vulnerability to extremist ideologies. Participants considered that an individual being affected by one factor (e.g., growing up with negative familial relationships) often increased the likelihood of being affected by another (e.g., looking for a sense of belonging).

These factors broadly fall into the following categories and subcategories. They are presented in order from most- to least-frequently mentioned by public sector practitioners in each category:

Individual factors

• Looking for a sense of belonging was seen as one of the key reasons someone would be drawn into extremism. This was usually linked to lacking a sense of community or a role model.
• A sense of unfairness about one’s life was seen as another key reason someone would be drawn into extremism. This was often linked to feeling isolated or marginalised and/or experiencing poverty or other socioeconomic challenges.
• Mental health problems in general came up frequently, such as having suffered trauma, along with closely aligned challenges such as having low self-esteem.
• Neurodiversity came up less frequently, but strongly amongst those who often work with neurodiverse members of the general public. Some practitioners expressed a concern that some neurodiverse people might be more vulnerable to manipulation.

Social factors

• Experiencing poverty was often cited and seen to feed into a sense of unfairness about one’s life, as well as a sense of marginalisation.
• Growing up in or going through the care system was mentioned by some, and similarly seen to feed into a sense of unfairness, marginalisation and isolation. Some felt a need for connection may lead an individual to be negatively influenced by others.
• Going through the prison system was also mentioned by some as an experience that feeds into a sense of unfairness and marginalisation. The space itself (i.e., prison) was also seen as a place where people may become radicalised.

Behavioural factors

• Being online a lot was seen by many public sector practitioners as something that could make someone more vulnerable to extremism through increased volume of exposure to extremist content or ideologies. Time spent online was perceived to have increased during the COVID-19 lockdowns.

Relationship factors

• Relationship factors arose particularly in the context of negative family dynamics (e.g., generally poor or abusive relationships with parents), but also the failure of romantic relationships.
• Some participants also discussed how individuals with family members or friends who hold extremist views can be influenced by those close, positive relationships, and come to hold those views as well.

“Any kind of isolation. Anything that makes people feel they need to identify with a group of some sort can encourage them to go down routes they wouldn’t have otherwise.”

(Practitioner without a Prevent-related role, Police Scotland, In-depth interview)

“I suppose that for communities who live in poverty, life is really hard... I can see why people would feel angry that that is their situation when other people don’t live in that way and don’t have to live in that way. And so, I guess that’s where there’s a sense of ‘actually, let’s fight this together.’ So it’s that sense of belongingness I suppose that allows you to survive.”

(Practitioner with a Prevent-related role, Local authorities and social work, In-depth interview)

“It’s the same as the reasons of them coming into prisons – poorly educated, poor social circle, lack of role model through their parents, being through the care system, latching onto wrong people.”

(Practitioner without a Prevent-related role, Scottish Prisons Service, Mini focus group)

“If they’re feeling excluded from society… picking up extremist views from the internet. There’s so much information out there that you can fit into your world view, that’s the problem.”

(Practitioner with a Prevent-related role, Scottish Prisons Service, In-depth interview)

3.6. Responses to prompted definitions of extremism

After exploring initial associations with and definitions of extremism in the qualitative discussions, participants were prompted with three existing definitions. The first was based on the Australian Government’s (2015) definition of violent extremism, the second on the Swedish Government’s (2015) definition of violent extremism, and the final is the UK Government definition of extremism (Home Office, 2011):

Australian definition: Extremism is a willingness to use unlawful violence, or support the use of violence by others, to promote a political, ideological or religious goal.

Swedish definition: Extremism is engagement with ideologies that accept and legitimise violence as a means of realising extreme ideological opinions and ideas.

UK definition: Extremism is vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths.

Survey respondents were also asked for their views on these definitions, though the Swedish definition was adapted further for use in the survey based on the way participants defined extremism in their own words in the qualitative discussions:

Extremism is active support of an ideology that accepts and legitimises violence as a means of realising extreme ideological opinions and ideas.

In addition, a fourth definition was developed for use in the survey which was also based on the definitions provided by public sector practitioners in their own words during the qualitative research:

Extremism is when somebody subscribes so strongly to a political, ideological or religious belief that they do not tolerate other people having different beliefs to theirs.

The qualitative research explored participants’ views on the definitions of extremism in detail, while the survey focused on obtaining a quantitative ranking of the definitions.

There was no clear consensus on which of the presented definitions was the best among public sector practitioners in the survey or qualitative discussions. However, the overall most popular definitions included reference to violence.

As shown in Figure 3, in the survey, the definitions based on the Australian Government’s (2022) and Swedish Government’s (2015) definitions of violent extremism were most commonly rated as the first or second closest to how respondents would define extremism.

Almost two thirds (63%) of public sector practitioners chose these two definitions as their first and second preference in the survey, confirming that violence is an important part of the definition of extremism for many, as had been seen in the initial responses. Some participants highlighted during qualitative discussions that they would include verbal abuse within that definition, not just physical violence.

Q5. Please rank these definitions from the one that is closest to how you would define extremism, to the furthest from how you would define extremism.

Base: All respondents, n=492.

However, some participants in the qualitative discussions objected to the inclusion of violence within the definition, as not everyone associated extremism with violence and felt that there were other ways extreme views could be expressed, for example, misogynistic behaviour. Additionally, some had concerns around the word ‘unlawful’ in the Australian definition. Since some violence can be supported by those in power, they felt that this definition allowed violence to be ‘lawful’ in certain contexts.

“There’s violence in all walks of life, it doesn’t have to be an extremist thought for that.”

(Practitioner without a Prevent-related role, Police Scotland, Mini focus group)

“Violence has to be an important part of the definition [of extremism]. A warped belief that escalates to something.”

(Practitioner without a Prevent-related role, Further / Higher education, Mini focus group)

The definition based on the Australian Government (2022) was universally popular in survey responses, with no differences based on sector or type of role. The definition based on the Swedish Government (2015) definition was more likely to be ranked as the top definition and in the top two by respondents who have experience of Prevent (28% and 70%) compared with those who do not (19% and 58%).

The definition that was most commonly rated in first place, but which placed third overall when first and second place rankings were combined, was the following:

Extremism is when somebody subscribes so strongly to a political, ideological or religious belief that they do not tolerate other people having different beliefs to theirs.

This definition was rated as the best by over a third (36%) of people, but also by many in third or fourth place (49%). This suggests that those who aligned with this definition tended to do so strongly, despite it not being the most popular definition. As noted above this definition was not discussed during the qualitative research, as it was developed based on practitioner feedback that a lack of tolerance is an important element of extremism.

“I like the mention of mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.”

(Practitioner with a Prevent-related role, Local authorities and social work, In-depth interview)

Despite there being no clear ‘best’ definition of extremism, the UK Government’s definition (Home Office, 2011) was the least popular. Less than a quarter (23%) of respondents rated this as the 1st or 2nd closest to how they would define extremism, with the majority (59%) rating it as the furthest from how they would define extremism of the four definitions. Over three quarters (77%) rated this definition in the bottom two. There were no notable subgroup differences in views for this definition.

The main objection to this definition was the inclusion of the term ‘British values’. Participants struggled to come to a consensus on what a ‘British value’ is and some felt the phrase had colonial associations.

“I’ve always struggled with the British values thing. Maybe 5 or 10 years ago but there’s something racist about the language in that... it’s almost comical when you think about British values, what even are they? Is that sitting in a beer garden on a sunny bank holiday? There’s the whole colonial aspect of it.”

(Practitioner without a Prevent-related role, Further / Higher education, Mini focus group)

“I don’t know what the fundamental British values are, but [they could instead include] global values, the rule of law and liberty and respect and tolerance.”

(Practitioner with a Prevent-related role, Primary / secondary education, In-depth interview)

However, this definition was more popular amongst those who felt violence should not be included in the definition.

“Most referrals are [about] what people are planning to do, not actual violence done, and it’s about diverting away from that.”

(Practitioner with a Prevent-related role, Local authority, In-depth interview)

3.7. Understanding of extremism in relation to terrorism and hate crime

After considering existing definitions of extremism, participants in the qualitative discussions were asked about their views on the differences between extremism, terrorism and hate crime.

Terrorism

Participants typically found it difficult to distinguish clearly between extremism and terrorism and often felt that they go ‘hand-in-hand’. This was especially true for public sector practitioners without Prevent-related roles. However, introducing ‘terrorism’ to the conversation in qualitative research sessions changed how many participants defined extremism.

Many participants cited violence when defining extremism early on. However, when asked to distinguish between extremism and terrorism, their views changed, with the majority feeling that terrorism was the violent act, with extremism being the underlying belief system.

“Extremism is happening in a person’s head and terrorism is the outward expression of that belief. The physical act is the terrorism.”

(Practitioner without a Prevent-related role, Further / Higher education, In-depth interview)

On the other hand, the consensus on the inclusion of violence was consistently clearer for terrorism. For many, terrorism was centred around the desire to incite fear in others and violence or aggression was a clear part of this.

“Terrorism is a tool that can be used by extremists. But not necessarily all extremists are terrorists.”

(Practitioner with a Prevent-related role, Primary / Secondary education, In-depth interview)

“Terrorists are always doing physical harm but with extremists are we always clear that it will end in violence? An extremist might not lead on to harming themselves or somebody else, it might all be more intellectual their ideas, rather than taking it forward to an actual event.”

(Practitioner without a Prevent-related role, Health and social care, In-depth interview)

Some public sector practitioners without Prevent-related roles associated terrorism more with certain religious groups, generally Islamist extremists, and large-scale events that would be reported in the news.

This was less common amongst public sector practitioners with Prevent-related roles, who seemed more confident on the distinction between the two. However, views still centred around terrorism being the intent to incite fear, with extremism the belief system.

Hate crime

Similarly, participants found hate crime difficult to distinguish from extremism. Some felt that hate crimes were a more common, sometimes less violent, expression of extremist beliefs, while others separated it from extremism entirely.

There was a sense amongst some that extremist behaviours involved long-term, thought-out processes, whereas hate crimes could arise spontaneously, from any situation and within any sector of the community, although they may be expressions of extremist beliefs.

Public sector practitioners with specific experiences of hate crime, such as police officers, felt there was a pronounced difference between hate crime and extremism, based on the underlying ideology (or lack thereof). Hate crimes were most commonly linked to views discriminating against those with protected characteristics such as racism or homophobia, while extremism tended to be seen as aimed at broader society.

Although not explicit in their responses, there was also a sense that extremism and terrorism felt like issues that affected other people in other areas, whereas hate crime was something that could feasibly occur in their community. Comments from some practitioners gave the impression of a degree of normalisation of hate crime as an issue, making it feel less extreme to these practitioners than terrorism.

“There’s a lot of low-level hate crime that doesn’t go down the route of violence or extremism […] I can get kids of primary school age committing hate crime and a lot of it is they don’t know what they’re doing. They’re not realising that that is a hate crime, so I would say there is a massive difference myself.”

(Practitioner without a Prevent-related role, Police Scotland, Mini focus group)

However, public sector practitioners with Prevent-related roles were more likely to see hate crime as an expression of extremism, albeit generally a less serious expression of extremist ideologies. Nevertheless, there was still confusion amongst this group as to how they would define hate crime.

“I think hate crime is more on an individual basis […] but I know a terrorist act can be towards one person as well. […] Yeah, it’s not all that different, I guess. It’s still, you know, with an ideology.”

(Practitioner with Prevent-related role, Local authority, In-depth interview)

3.8. Conclusions

All participants, including those familiar with Prevent in their roles, struggled to define extremism, while terrorism was felt to be much easier to define. However, those familiar with Prevent were more likely to be able to define extremism in qualitative discussions, and felt confident in this in the survey (42% of practitioners in Prevent managerial roles said they were very confident in knowing what is meant by the term ‘extremism’ compared with 22% in Prevent non-managerial roles).

Violence (or the potential for it) stemming from extreme views was a top-of-mind association with extremism initially, with views that may lead to or incite violence seen as more clearly extreme than views that would not. When shown examples of various definitions of extremism, public sector practitioners also favoured definitions that referenced violence – although there was little consensus on which best reflected participants’ own understandings, aside from consensus that it was not the current UK Government definition.

However, when asked to differentiate between extremism and terrorism, this view shifted. Participants tended to say that terrorism always involved violence, whereas someone could hold extremist views but not be violent themselves.

Terrorism was therefore viewed by public sector practitioners as the most serious form of extremism. Some practitioners used an analogy of a spectrum of extremism, with individuals who hold (but do not act upon) extremist beliefs at one end of the spectrum and those who perpetrate acts of terrorism at the other end.

Practitioners were split as to whether hate crime was considered extremist or not. However, there was consensus that it was a serious issue. For those who used the analogy of a spectrum of extremism, hate crime was generally viewed as being a more serious issue than those who simply hold extremist beliefs (but don’t act on them) and less serious than acts of terrorism.

In contrast with defining extremism itself, public sector practitioners found it much easier to explain factors that can lead someone to be vulnerable to extremism. Public sector practitioners often cited multiple factors that might make someone more vulnerable to extremism and there was a strong sense that these factors are often interlinked (e.g., living in poverty was seen to increase the likelihood of an individual being socially excluded, which may then make extremist ideologies more appealing).