Implications of the study

This study has sought to respond to the objective of exploring the risks and practices of integrating counter-radicalisation efforts in education. In so doing, a number of questions have been asked about the intersecting of security and education and, in particular, what preventive discourses on radicalisation are present in educational and political discussions in Norway, and how they can affect social and educational practice. Ideally, some of the answers to these questions can be of value in developing policy, practice and theory, which is the focus of this fourth subchapter.

The main purpose of this study has been to address the near lack of empirical data on counter-radicalisation efforts in Norwegian schools, and this study constitutes the first in-depth research of this subject in Norway since the government placed counter-radicalisation efforts on the political agenda. It is an exploratory study that has contributed to the empirical analysis of educational discussions and discourses, by focusing on how practitioners in Norway describe radicalisation and violent extremism and, furthermore, how these practitioners narrate the carrying out of prevention efforts in accordance with their understandings.

Among the key theoretical implications of this study is the literature review that was presented in Article I. This study argued for the need to ground counter-radicalisation efforts in genuinely good education, a claim that has been expressed previously (Kyriacou et al., 2017; Panjwani et al., 2018); yet, the study also contributes a theory-building framework on the preventive role of education. By applying a multi-levelled preventive model that aims to embrace the heterogeneity and complexity of radicalisation and extremism, the study reviewed primary-data studies to demonstrate how counter-radicalisation efforts in education should be grounded in the democratic ideals of liberal, progressive and inclusive pedagogics. This preventive model may allow for a more comprehensive understanding of the role of education, and it does so by conceptualising prevention as the increasing use of social and relational work in respect of the growing concern that practitioners may have regarding students being radicalised towards violent extremism.

The argument that radical and extremist students should be met with care, inclusion and tolerance in education seems perhaps elementary and maybe even “common sense”. After all, this is what education should be providing for all students, regardless of any concern of radicalisation in the first place. Yet, as noted by Phillips (2005), research on educational practice often proves what should more or less be considered common sense; this is hardly surprising, as social science is little more than common sense, albeit a more detailed and circumstantial account of it.

While this evidence is a theoretical implication, the added insight from it can affect social practice, as it demonstrates the need for practitioners to emphasise inclusivity and support in their approaches to prevention.

A second implication derives from the narratives of educators and social educators in Norway. Findings from these interviews can be used to discern different discursive practices on preventing radicalisation and violent extremism, and the study identified a wide discourse, which aligns with good education, and a narrow discourse that closely resembles the preventive solutions that are associated with the radicalisation discourse. In this sense, although the research falls short

of studying any social practice or applying macro level theories in its analysis (given its exploratory nature), the study is one of few that examine educational preventive discourses on a societal micro level. It reveals that the ideological assumptions that underpin the radicalisation discourse can place practitioners in a space of dissonance and conflict.

There are at least three key challenges related to these underlying ideological assumptions: 1) the unrealistic preventive responsibilities that are placed upon them regarding the predicting of future terrorists, 2) the derogatory labelling of students who do not adapt to the image of an ideal citizen as vulnerable or at risk, and 3) the suppressive effects of the radicalisation discourse on Muslims in Norwegian society and schools.

Based on this study, it seems appropriate to suggest that society needs to abandon the futile and stigmatising task of having practitioners predict future terrorists. However, to change political or societal views on radicalisation and violent extremism and their inherent solutions is by no means a small undertaking, especially as the radicalisation discourse seems to fuse with the dominant neoliberal discourse. Yet, as Lindahl (2017, p. 530) notes, how states conduct counterterrorism changes over time, and envisioning how to get rid of the stigmatising and potentially suppressive radicalisation discourse does not require a giant leap of imagination. Considering how the practitioners in this study narrate that counter-radicalisation efforts should be grounded in relational pedagogy, social interaction and the genuine safeguarding of students, applying this is what Lindahl describes as a “proactive approach to preventions”, which may actually enhance human security and emancipation (p. 528).

This is also reminiscent of what Lid and Heierstad (2019) describe as how the ideals and values of the Norwegian counter-radicalisation model are based on a social crime prevention model that is dependent on human welfare, as well as societal and political trust.

Therefore, perhaps a reframing of the issue is more appropriate, that is, to create more awareness that this is a discourse on terrorism that may lead to harmful practices in education. This study contributes to this discussion by arguing that the integration of counter-radicalisation

efforts in education generally and Norwegian schools specifically needs to be approached cautiously and critically. Overall, the findings imply that practitioners need to reflect on their professional roles so as not to let counter-radicalisation efforts impair the functions of good education.

The study could also have implications for policy, as the findings presented here indicate that security policies are not well known by sampled practitioners who, when confronted with these policies, usually describe them as having little applicational value, on the basis of their being probabilistic, generic and de-contextualised. In this sense, the study is especially timely, as the process of revising the action plan on preventing radicalisation and violent extremism in Norway is currently being undertaken. Thus, the study proposes that politicians must develop a better appreciation of the problematic experiences of counter-radicalisation efforts in educational systems elsewhere, and steps should be taken accordingly, to better understand these social concerns.

No prior in-depth study has investigated the intersecting of education and security in Norway. Thus, this work can be considered an original contribution to studying the fields of educational studies, security studies and terrorism research. It constitutes one of only a handful of studies that combine primary-data research on these subjects that are discursively analysed, and, consequently, this work makes a small contribution to exploring the securitisation of education from a CDA and critical realist position (Faure-Walker, 2019; Mattsson, 2018b).

Although the theoretical and methodological aspects of CDA have been eclectically applied in the primary-data studies, the study has combined description and critique in the study of counter-radicalisation efforts in education, thus adhering to Fairclough’s (2013) claim that it is simply not sufficient to describe existing realities, it is also necessary to evaluate and assess these efforts, with key a focus on studying social wrongs.