Evidence for countering violent extremism programming remains thin and methodologically weak.

Evidence

At the time of writing, there were only a limited number of studies—many of them conducted by RAND—that rigorously examined the impact of CVE programming. All of the studies reported positive outcomes: Process evaluations indicated that programs were successfully implemented, and some interventions changed attitudes. However, these studies generally employed weak evaluation designs, limiting any conclusions we can make about the program effects or our ability to compare different approaches. This is especially true of programs in the West, since only four studies were conducted with U.S. or European populations. — Ryan Andrew Brown, Todd C. Helmus, Rajeev Ramchand, Alina I. Palimaru, Sarah Weilant, Ashley L. Rhoades, and Liisa Hiatt (RAND Corporation), Violent Extremism in America, 212

Categorization

  • QUESTION: This sets a low evidentiary bar that the book’s interviews are meant to fill — worth remembering when weighing how authoritative the later testimony can be.
  • XREF: connects to: Extremism research is too undeveloped for hypothesis testing, unlike suicide autopsy studies. — Ryan Andrew Brown, Todd C. Helmus, Rajeev Ramchand, Alina I. Palimaru, Sarah Weilant, Ashley L. Rhoades, and Liisa Hiatt (RAND Corporation), Violent Extremism in America:…, 130; Terrorism studies lacked disciplinary rigor, letting biased ideologues shape security policy; Integration rhetoric predates anti-terror policy and lacks an evidence base — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us…, 425 (+5 more)

Broader Connections