Tvv_2016-1_omslag_large
Rss

Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid


Over dit tijdschrift  
Aflevering 4, 2013 Alle samenvattingen uitklappen
Redactioneel

Werkt het Nederlands deradicaliseringsbeleid?

Auteurs Frank Bovenkerk, Dianne van Hemert en Hani Quint
Auteursinformatie

Frank Bovenkerk
Prof. dr. Frank Bovenkerk is criminoloog en gepensioneerd hoogleraar Radicaliseringsstudies aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam. E-mail: f.bovenkerk@uva.nl.

Dianne van Hemert
Dr. Dianne van Hemert is senior onderzoeker bij TNO. E-mail: dianne.vanhemert@tno.nl.

Hani Quint
Drs. Hani Quint is als onderzoeker/docent verbonden aan het lectoraat Politieleiderschap en Diversiteit van de Politieacademie. E-mail: Hani.Quint@politieacademie.nl.
Artikel

Training Diamant

Een persoonlijke impressie

Auteurs Frank Bovenkerk
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This is an ethnographic evaluation study on a train the trainer programme (Diamant) for the prevention of political radicalisation among young Muslims in the Netherlands. Especially the training of independent judgement on moral issues looks promising to overcome cultural disorientation. Its preventive power for radicalisation is unclear since there were no radicals among the participants of the training.


Frank Bovenkerk
Prof. dr. Frank Bovenkerk is criminoloog en gepensioneerd hoogleraar Radicaliseringsstudies aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam. E-mail: f.bovenkerk@uva.nl.

    In this article a longitudinal effect study is described of resilience training Diamant. The training focuses in particular on adolescents with a dual identity who do not have work, are not enrolled in an education, feel unfairly treated (relatively deprived), have low self-esteem, and are at risk of social isolation. The training can be considered as a method to prevent development of criminal behaviour and possibly radicalisation. Certified trainers work with small groups of 10 to 15 adolescents to increase their resilience and help them finding their place in society. The present research focused on the following questions: (1) Does this training have a positive effect on self-esteem among the participants? (2) Does social isolation decrease as a consequence of the training? (3) Does the training reduce feelings of relative deprivation and help participants better deal with conflicts? Participants were interviewed before and halfway the training and directly after completing the training. A follow-up measurement three months after the end of the training examined effects on the longer term. In total 44 semi-structured interviews were held. Interviews were written out and coded using a two-step procedure: In the first step two researchers independently coded each interview. Second, when necessary, changes in the coding scheme were made. Then each interview was coded separately by the two researchers and disagreements were discussed until full agreement was reached. The results show that Diamant has a positive effect on self-esteem of participants. Also, participants overall showed an increase in connectedness to society. Third, Diamant reduced feelings of relative deprivation and participants indicated they could better deal with conflicts. Based on these results it is concluded that Diamant is effective in regard to its goals which were evaluated in this study. Limitations of the research and possibilities for future studies are discussed.


Allard R. Feddes
Dr. Allard Feddes is als postdoctoraal onderzoeker verbonden aan de Faculteit der Maatschappij- en Gedragswetenschappen, afdeling Sociale Psychologie, Universiteit van Amsterdam. E-mail: A.R.Feddes@uva.nl.

Liesbeth Mann
Drs. Liesbeth Mann is als promovenda verbonden aan de Faculteit der Maatschappij- en Gedragswetenschappen, afdeling Sociale Psychologie, Universiteit van Amsterdam. E-mail: L.Mann@uva.nl.

Nathalie de Zwart
Nathalie de Zwart, BSc, was ten tijde van het onderzoek als onderzoeksassistente verbonden aan de Faculteit der Maatschappij- en Gedragswetenschappen, afdeling Sociale Psychologie, Universiteit van Amsterdam. E-mail: dezwart.n@gmail.com.

Bertjan Doosje
Prof. dr. Bertjan Doosje is verbonden aan de Faculteit der Maatschappij- en Gedragswetenschappen, afdeling Sociale Psychologie, en het Amsterdam Institute for Social Sciences (AISS) ‘Challenges to Democratic Representation’. Hij is als bijzonder hoogleraar bekleder van de FORUM Frank Buijs-leerstoel voor Radicaliseringsstudies. E-mail: E.J.Doosje@uva.nl.

    Halt is a Dutch organization for enforcement of alternative punishment given tot juveniles and prevention activities, like for example advisory services and educational programmes. In the context of the Government action programme Polarization and Radicalization – a programme to reduce the chances of people to become a radical or even a terrorist − the Halt offices in Limburg in cooperation with the KPC Group developed an education kit of six lessons meant for juveniles (primary school and secondary education). The lessons are given by Halt fellow workers and the teacher of the class is there for give them support and to observe the lessons. This project is qualitatively evaluated and the conclusion is as follows. The reason for the project is not located in a problem of radicalization, the final target group is more restricted than intended and in the implementation the words radicalization and polarization may not be used. Is it then a good educational package? Yes, say different Halt employees, but not for the problem raised, because that problem is not identified by them.


Hani Quint
Drs. Hani Quint is als onderzoeker/docent verbonden aan het lectoraat Politieleiderschap en Diversiteit van de Politieacademie. E-mail: Hani.Quint@politieacademie.nl.

    In 2011 we executed a quantitative and qualitative research on the extent of discrimination, polarisation and radicalisation in a region in the Netherlands. The results are representative for The Netherlands. The research shows that there is breeding ground for radicalization, in particular Muslim youths. The outcome also provides insights in relevant avenues for public policy. Over the past years, several inventories have been made of public policy that aims to counter radicalisation. Most of the interventions listed do not conjure with the interventions we propose on the basis of our research, such as awareness raising for practitioners, prevention of and education about discrimination, focus on neighbourhood grievances and nuisances caused by specific ethnic groups and the negative tone of the public debate regarding Islam and the multicultural society. If measures to counter radicalization are even evaluated, they tend to focus on the process and effectiveness of the intervention, but they do not answer the question if that is actually also the right intervention. We therefore propose not only to focus on doing things right, but also to ask the question if we are doing the right things. We suggest not only measuring effectiveness, but also measuring impact.


Amy-Jane Gielen
Drs. Amy-Jane Gielen is senior onderzoeker en adviseur bij A.G. Advies B.V. E-mail: a.gielen@agadvies.com www.agadvies.com.

Ron van Wonderen
Drs. Ron van Wonderen is senior onderzoeker bij het Verwey-Jonker Instituut in Utrecht. E-mail: rvanwonderen@verwey-jonker.nl.

    Preventive interventions against terrorist attacks can be justified on legal and moral grounds. The Dutch broad-based approach against terrorism also addresses radicalizations processes. It is, however, hard to justify why a government in a liberal democracy should be allowed to intervene in processes of radicalization where danger to society is not obvious. A reason to justify intervention is when a (former) radical asks for help. Theories based on the ideas of Kant and Rawls also allow for intervention if an individual’s autonomy is diminished because he is member of a sect or under the spell of a charismatic leader. Other interventions with regard to (prevention of) radicalization cannot be justified by deontological theories such as Kant’s and Rawls’. Virtue ethics or teleology would, however, allow interventions but only if they are geared towards helping the individual in their quest to the good life. This justification allows for interventions that are, for example, focused on supporting individuals to critically reflect, reason and discuss about the good life and a just society. Based on the teleological justification constraints can be derived for preventive interventions with regard to radicalization or even deradicalisation. Notice that individuals cannot be forced to join these programs because there is no legal basis.


Anke van Gorp
Dr. ir. Anke van Gorp is onderzoeker en hogeschooldocent Ethiek en Veiligheid aan de Hogeschool Utrecht, Integrale Veiligheidskunde, Faculteit FMR. E-mail: anke.vangorp@hu.nl

Arnold Roosendaal
Mr. Arnold Roosendaal is onderzoeker bij TNO, afdeling Strategy and Policy for the Information Society.