Warwick researchers find Prevent lacks transparency
A new study led by researchers at Warwick University has found that the methodology used by the government’s counter-terrorism strategy Prevent lacks transparency and validity.
The study reviewed questionnaires and rating scales used by Prevent to assess the likelihood of an individual becoming radicalised in order to deter them from terrorism with early intervention.
They found that only half of the tools used for analysis were based on clear and open methodology and there were numerous methodological flaws in every study included in the review.
They also reported a lack of transparency in many of the techniques and even found some findings and guidelines have not been published at all.
Researchers expressed that it was a cause for concern that policies were made and actions taken based on this very limited information.
The study was published on 21 December, in the midst of an ongoing debate over Prevent in which many have accused it of being based on little more than stereotypes.
Our review advocates that such studies need to be published in their entirety and critiqued in order to ensure transparency.
Dr Vivek Furtado, Warwick Medical School
It is argued mainly Muslims have been referred to the programme with those suffering from mental health issues also being flagged as ‘risks’.
In particular schools and Universities have been targeted by the strategy and the programme has come under heavy criticism from some students and academics.
The National Union of Students (NUS) launched the ‘Students not Suspects’ campaign in response and Warwick Students’ Union ran a Prevent conference last October, to discuss issues with its policies.
The findings of the recent study now appear to further these concerns about Prevent’s accuracy and how useful it is as a measure for countering terrorism.
Dr Vivek Furtado of Warwick Medical School, who led the research, highlighted that the study was particularly alarming as: “Professional assessments are generally assumed to be the gold standard.”
He concluded: “Our review advocates that such studies need to be published in their entirety and critiqued in order to ensure transparency.”
Comments