1 Introduction
Violent extremism has become a core concern in the early twenty-first century, with more than 62,000 incidents of terrorism occurring between 2011 and 2015 (Borum & Neer, 2017). As a result, national governments have worked individually and collectively to try and address violent extremism; however,
2 Public Health Approach
A public health approach to violence prevention is not new. Indeed, some of the foundational work in the early part of this century regarding international efforts for preventing violence took a public health approach to the issue (Dahlberg & Krug, 2002). A public health approach generally requires six steps: (1) surveillance (definition and monitoring); (2) identification of risk factors; (3) identification of protective factors; (4) seeking and developing interventions (mitigating risk and strengthening protective factors in building resilience); (5) evaluating interventions; and (6) scaling up (Satcher & Higginbotham, 2008).
In 2002, the World Health Organization contextualized violence as a public health issue (Dahlberg & Krug, 2002) and followed that initial report with related reports looking at development agencies (World Health Organization [WHO], 2008); violence prevention (WHO, 2010); and status (Butchart & Mikton, 2014; Mikton et al., 2016). In 2018, the American Public Health Association (APHA) declared violence a public health concern. This work looks at issues of violence generally, however, and not at violent extremism or terrorism specifically. Indeed, the WHO categorization of violent extremism falls under the broader term of collective violence.
Parallel with and similar to developments in the public health sector, the crime prevention and education sectors have developed school-based and school-linked models focusing on preventing crime and violence and promoting social inclusion (Juvonen et al., 2019; European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2018). The research on inclusive schooling is extensive, and models describing multicomponent approaches have been published by United Nations (UN) agencies for years These include a manual for child friendly schools (United Nations Children’s Fund [UNICEF], 2007) and a handbook on school-based violence prevention (WHO, 2019). This ‘inclusive
3 Surveillance/Overview of the Literature
The first step in a public health approach to the prevention of violent extremism is to define the problem (part of the surveillance of the issue within a public health framework). As Ghosh et al. (2017) point out, a major challenge within the PVE literature is the lack of a common definition of terms (including terms such as terrorism, violent extremism, collective violence, ideologically motivated violence) and approaches (countering violent extremism versus preventing violent extremism). Part of the problem is that the use of these terms is politically laden—that is, when violence takes on political or ideological purposes, it becomes an exercise of power. In such cases, the powerful are left to define who the terrorists and extremists are and, unsurprisingly, that tends to be those seeking changes in power relations, both within and among countries (Borum & Neer, 2017; Ucko, 2018). Further challenges arise in determining what constitutes extremism and to what extent efforts to address extremism might conflict with the principles of free thought and speech. For these reasons, the UN, in seeking to address terrorism and violent extremism, left the definition of the terms to its individual member states (United Nations General Assembly, 2006). There is additional ambiguity in how terms interact and overlap, with some researchers using the terms ‘violent extremism’ and ‘terrorism’ synonymously.
The process of becoming a violent extremist or terrorist is also difficult to map, and it is therefore difficult to design interventions to prevent or counter it. The literature identifies multiple types of violent extremists or terrorists, ranging from lone offenders to loosely organized networks and highly organized groups. Further, the path towards personal engagement in extremist activity is diverse, with individual motivation to engage in violent extremism developing slowly over time and along variable pathways (Borum & Neer, 2017). In fact, some identified risk factors are so general as to be meaningless at best and harmful to prevention efforts at worst (Wynia et al., 2017).
While most articles acknowledge these problems, they also note that there are commonalities across the definitions. Terrorism is generally conceptualized through a description of the violent action, the actors (individuals and groups acting outside the scope of a nation or its military), the targets (advocating public violence against civilians), and the actors’ motivations (advancing a particular political goal or seeking to create fear in populations). In the
Radicalization is a process by which an individual or a group gradually adopts extreme positions or ideologies that are opposed to the status quo and challenge mainstream ideas.
Radicalization to violence is the process by which individuals and groups adopt an ideology and/or belief system that justifies the use of violence in order to advance their cause.
Violent extremism is a term describing the beliefs and actions of people who support or use violence to achieve extreme ideological, religious, or political goals.
In the United States, the APHA uses the term ‘ideologically motivated violence’. For the purposes of this article, we are analysing the scholarship across these terms together but will discuss the collected research in terms of violent extremism. Despite the definitional difficulties, violence has been identified as a public health problem at national (American Public Health Association [APHA], 2018) and global levels (Dahlberg & Krug, 2002), with more than 62,000 incidents of violent extremism occurring between 2011 and 2015 (Borum & Neer, 2017).
4 Risk Factors
When looking at preventing violent extremism, there are two primary umbrella-terms: countering violent extremism (CVE) and preventing violent extremism (PVE). CVE was initially advanced by the Obama administration in the United States, although many of the prevention perspectives were present in earlier efforts in Europe. CVE focuses on the idea that governments and communities can take proactive steps to counter the recruitment and radicalization of followers by extremist organizations, ideas further incorporated in the UN’s Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism (United Nations General Assembly, 2015). Both terms demonstrated a shift away from a more security-oriented approach to counterterrorism towards a focus on addressing the structural causes of violent extremism: lack of socioeconomic opportunities; marginalization and discrimination; poor government; violations of human rights and the rule of law; prolonged and unresolved conflicts; and radicalization in prisons (United Nations General Assembly, 2015). It is this broader approach to prevention that provides an opportunity for education policymakers to think about ways to contribute to the reduction of violence and extremism.
4.1 Individual Indicators Identified in the Literature
Identifying the risk factors for violent extremism is a complex undertaking. The path to violent extremism (radicalization) is generally thought to progress along five lines (Borum & Neer, 2017): (1) life experiences (such as discrimination or alienation); (2) activating/triggering situations (more recent events driving an extreme response in an individual); (3) predisposing vulnerabilities and propensities (psychological issues, such as the need for belonging); (4) social and group dynamics (engagement with a radical group); and (5) ideology or narrative (adoption of an extremist group’s ideas, beliefs, and values). Within these lines, a variety of individual and communal indicators associated with extremism have been identified in the literature (see Table 9.1). The risk factors include: lack of social control (lack of stable employment); social learning (radical peers); a history of psychological and mental health issues; experience of violence and abuse; a criminal record; isolation and separation from the mainstream identity; and experience of individual discrimination.
Risk factors and protective factors for violent extremism
Risk factors | Protective factors | ||
---|---|---|---|
Individual | Communal | Social connection | Social linkage |
Lack of social control | Economic discrimination | Connection with community | Political power-sharing, voting |
Social learning/peers | Separation from the common good | Connection with public institutions | School completion |
Mental health issues | Weak links to public institutions | Connection with public values/citizenship | Post-secondary involvement |
Violence and abuse | |||
Criminal history | |||
Isolation/separation | |||
Discrimination |
These risk factors are not unique to violent extremism and have, in fact, been associated with a number of violence-related social problems, including gang membership (Eisenman & Flavahan, 2017), criminal involvement (Clemmow et al., 2020), school dropout (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2016), and violent behaviour (Clemmow et al., 2020). This broad overlap of risk factors associated with a diversity of negative longer-term indicators suggests that a broad-based approach to intervention could address multiple potential negative outcomes.
4.2 Communal Indicators Identified in the Literature
Individual risk factors are only one part of the story when looking at violence and violent extremism. Breakdowns of the community can also contribute to
5 Protective Factors
Just as there are life experiences that can increase one’s risk for violent extremism, there are also experiences that can build resilience, i.e. the capacity to resist engaging in such negative behaviours (see Table 9.1). Without wishing to oversimplify, many of the protective factors are essentially the opposite of the risk factors. Rather than social isolation, there is a social connection; instead of separation from the common good, there is trust in public institutions; and rather than a lack of social control, there is power-sharing and self-governance.
5.1 Social Connection
Social connection refers to the idea that individuals feel a connection to the people in their communities, resulting in a reduced impetus to harm that
When individuals embrace a common purpose and hold common values within their communities (feeling membership of an ethnic, cultural, religious, or other type of community), the impetus for harming that community is reduced (Ellis & Abdi, 2017). Similarly, embracing common purposes and values across separately identifiable communities (separate communities united by common values and goals, such as diversity, liberty, democracy) can also build resilience to violence and violent engagement (Ellis & Abdi, 2017).
While social connection is important, it rests within the broader public values of that community. As identified under the heading of risk factors, if the values of the community are extreme, then a sense of social connection to those views obviously connects the individual to extremism. Some research has shown that a strong social connection can result in the dehumanization of people outside of the social grouping (Waytz & Epley, 2012), potentially increasing the risk of extremism. In short, social connection depends strongly on the ‘what’ that individuals are connected with.
5.2 Social Linkage
A key aspect in ensuring a positive social connection is the extent to which that connection is part of a linkage between the community and broader public values and institutions. Building trust in public institutions, involvement in activities to advance community goals, sharing power, and strengthening community self-governance, decision making, and outcomes can help build resilience to violent extremism (Ellis & Abdi, 2017).
Resorting to violence and extremism may be an indicator that non-violent behaviours are not seen as viable paths for realizing desired personal and social outcomes. A sense of social connection and a belief in common values across diverse communities suggests that desired outcomes can be achieved within non-violent and socially acceptable norms.
As with the risk factors, these protective factors are also associated with building resilience to other negative outcomes, again including violence, crime, and gang activity (Mendelson et al., 2018; Kia-Keating et al., 2011). Further, these factors are related to positive social outcomes such as political participation (Briggs, 2010), school completion, post-secondary involvement, and lifetime earnings (David-Ferdon et al., 2016). Finally, schools are an important place for building these social connections and for community linkages (Blank et al., 2003; Johnson, 2009).
6 Intervening
Schools act as a cultural focal point for the community (Blank et al., 2003). As centres of cultural transference, schools serve as a uniting force within the community; they can help minimize individual and communal risk factors, strengthen protective factors, and build resilience in students, families, and the broader community.
6.1 Schools as Centres for Social Connection and Linkage
A social connection is created when individuals in schools and communities embrace common values and purposes within a broader cultural framework, resulting in an educated citizenry able to participate fully in the economy. These connections are realized through linkages between individuals and the broader society and positively influence a number of health and mortality outcomes (Holt-Lunstad, et al., 2017; Pate et al., 2016; Patton et al., 2017). Schools that are envisioned as a public good and a source of cultural transference empower students and their families with a sense of control over their intellectual, cultural, and economic future.
As public enterprises, schools in many countries are guided by locally elected school boards. By involving the community in selecting the stewards for the local schools, the community is empowered in guiding the development of its children towards a common set of values, and this personal investment in the broader society can serve as a protective factor guiding participants to live within the norms of the community (Land, 2002).
Within schools, parent groups further help to give voice to the community and to empower its members to experience some sense of involvement and control over their child’s education. Envisioned this way, public schools are widely accessible in most countries and provide a ubiquitous intervention point for building social connection and community empowerment (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2017).
6.2 Educational Programmes and Pedagogy
The view of schools as centres for the community and as focal points for addressing society’s problems is neither new nor unique (Blank et al., 2003). Activists see schools as a place for teaching future generations about issues they see as important and as a result, there are a large number of programmes and structures proposed for schools and their communities. By arguing for changes in the curriculum and in schools through teacher preparation and professional development, extracurricular activities, and school-wide reform, activists
Selected educational programmes addressing similar PVE risk and protective factors
Curriculum and learning | School/institutional focused | Community programmes |
---|---|---|
Global citizenship education | Inclusive/child-friendly schools | Parent/adult programmes |
Social and emotional learning | Whole school/child programmes | Career development |
Intercultural education | Positive behaviour support | Cultural programmes, etc. |
Media literacy and internet safety programmes | Youth engagement | Child care, meal programmes |
Anti-bullying programmes | Restorative justice | Extracurricular programmes |
All Canadian jurisdictions also already use multicomponent approaches to health and welfare that have broad support in research and experience (McCall & Laitsch, 2017). These include inclusive and child-friendly schools, safe schools, healthy schools, and community schools. Other multi-intervention programmes in use include social and emotional learning, positive behaviour support, and gang prevention. Consequently, a hybrid multicomponent approach for preventing violent extremism and promoting social inclusion was easily understood and embraced by Canadian educators (see Table 9.3). A recent research review undertaken for the Department of Education in the United Kingdom has already recommended a similar multicomponent approach there (Sheikh et al., 2010).
Violent extremism risk factors and protective factors and the example educational programmes that address them
Risk factors | Protective factors | ||
---|---|---|---|
Individual risk factors | Educational programmes | Social connection | Educational programmes |
Lack of social control | Global citizenship education | Connection with community | Parent/adult programmes Career development Cultural programmes |
Social learning/peers | Social and emotional learning Inclusive/child-friendly schools |
Connection with public institutions | Emergency shelters School boards Health care Multiagency service coordination |
Mental health issues | Positive behaviour support | Connection with public values/citizenship | Parent/adult programmes Immigration and refugee services |
Violence and abuse | Anti-bullying programmes | Social linkage | Educational programmes |
Criminal history | Gang prevention Youth engagement |
Political power-sharing, voting | Voting centres School boards |
Isolation/separation | Inclusive/child-friendly schools | Completion of school education | Adult education Alternative programmes |
Discrimination | Intercultural education | Post-secondary engagement | Bridge programmes Career preparation |
Communal risk factors | Educational programmes | ||
Economic discrimination | Career development Post-secondary preparation Home economics |
||
Separation from the common good | Restorative justice Intercultural education |
||
Weak links to public institutions | Global citizenship education Government |
Activists interested in advancing their programmes are used to thinking of schools as knowledge centres—centres of learning that are designed to transmit knowledge about an issue to students. While teaching students specific knowledge or skills may contribute to resilience in students at risk of violent extremism (Ghosh et al., 2017; Sheikh et al., 2010), building trust in institutions, communities, and peers can also be accomplished by considering the way we teach (pedagogies) and the customs and rules (culture) of the institution. In particular, by using pedagogies and cultural practices that support students’ intrinsic motivation to engage with their school, we can strengthen their resilience for facing challenging situations. In other words, while we might teach students what democracy is through the curriculum, we can help them experience democracy by using democratic practices within the classroom, school, and community (see Figure 9.2).
Classroom management is a core part of teaching, and the establishment of classroom rules and norms sends a powerful message to students the values of their society and culture. Classroom rules that are imposed by the teacher or principal send a clear message to student that obedience to authority is paramount. On the other hand, classroom rules and norms that are discussed, negotiated, and democratically determined send a message that rules are determined collectively. Students then become active participants in making the
Democratic classroom pedagogies focus on relationship building and trust by creating communities of learning. Students build connections with each other and with the institution, including its practices and procedures. When rules and norms are broken, the use of positive discipline (Luiselli et al., 2005) and restorative justice programmes (Finley, 2011) can strengthen students’ connection with their peers and their community and empower them to participate in the resolution process rather than being alienated, isolated, or pushed away from community through punishments like suspension, removal from class, or after-school detention. These types of programmes are in many ways about teaching the skills and behaviours, and thereby giving students actual experience of, democracy and justice.
Bringing the community into the school can also have substantial benefits by building social connections and linkages, including reductions in dropout and risky behaviour (Heers et al., 2016). The concept of community schools sees schools as centres of cooperation with other public health and social service institutions. It involves parents in school governance and activities and offers extracurricular activities to students and the broader community (Heers et al., 2016).
7 Programme Design, Development, and Implementation
Designing school-based programmes to address the risk of terrorism and violent extremism will be challenging. The lack of a common definition for terrorism and violent extremism makes it difficult both to design and test specific programmes. The lack of a specific typology and pathway for terrorism and
Understanding the diversity of risk factors that are correlated with violence and violent extremism can help us in examining approaches that can mitigate the risks and help build resilience (see Table 9.4). In thinking about interventions in this manner, however, there are three important caveats to keep in mind. First, the path to violent extremism is non-linear and generally the culmination of multiple push and pull risk factors; second, the research is not conclusive on many risk factors with different studies at times offering conflicting outcomes (Clemmow et al., 2020); and third, we need to ensure that we are not creating a deficit model of symptoms to be addressed but instead focus on creating a healthy culture and community.
List of overlapping risk factors and protective factors for violence in schools and for violent extremism
Risk factors | Protective factors |
---|---|
Individual and peer | |
Alcohol/drug use | Pro-social/non-violent peers |
Previous violent, delinquent, or antisocial behaviour/arrest record | |
Antisocial or aggressive beliefs and attitudes | |
Association with antisocial or delinquent peers | |
Impulsivity | |
Lack of supervision | |
Mental health challenges (depression, anxiety, chronic stress, trauma) | |
School | |
Low academic achievement | Positive adult relations |
Low school engagement or commitment | School connectedness Academic achievement |
Family | |
Poor family management | Positive adult/familial relations |
Community | |
Community norms conducive to violent or antisocial behaviour | Positive adult relations |
Situational risk factors | Economic opportunity |
Poor economic growth/stability | Pro-social non-violent community |
Unemployment | |
Poverty |
7.1 Contextual Challenges: Authentic Change
Public schools occupy a special place in communities and are highly visible institutions. While schools may not necessary be seen by the public as an arm of the government, as publicly funded and governed entities, they play a key role in strengthening social linkage through building trust in other public institutions, establishing common goals and purposes, and power-sharing. However, in realizing the power of schools to build social linkages between communities and the broader public, a number of technical and authentic challenges arise.
7.2 Technical Challenges
One of the biggest challenges in strengthening the role of schools in promoting social linkage is the deficit model approach to change as represented by many intervention programmes. As highlighted earlier, schools are seen as important intervention points in addressing social problems. Schools have been asked to ‘fix’ many of society’s problems—including obesity, media literacy, gender equity, and racism—even while they are being labelled the protectors of privilege and the status quo because their structures reinforce capitalist and neoliberal values that protect those in power through a hidden curriculum (Portelli & Konecny, 2013). Adding another problem, namely violent extremism, to the
Instead of conceptualizing PVE work as another specific problem for the community or for schools to address, we propose focusing on the broader role of schools in building a resilient culture in which violent extremism is not a viable alternative. This can be done through the consideration of whole school or whole child approaches to change that emphasize and support healthy children, cultures, and communities. Broad interventions supporting democratic schooling, citizenship education, personal health, and other programmes focused on personal wellness (see Table 9.3) can help minimize the push factors that drive children to violence.
There are several well-established school-based or school-linked multicomponent approaches that can provide policy or programme frameworks that ‘offer a home’ for methods for preventing student alienation, isolation, potential violent extremism and that promote social inclusion. These include approaches such as child friendly and inclusive schools, safe and caring schools, healthy schools, community schools, intercultural education, disaster risk reduction, and peace education, among others.
There are also several well-established multi-intervention programmes (MIP) that can be adapted to include greater attention to student alienation and isolation. These include anti-bullying programmes, positive behaviour supports (PBS), dropout prevention, gang prevention, mental health programmes, resistance training in substance abuse prevention, school climate improvement programmes, and others.
These multifaceted approaches and programmes represent an existing infrastructure and capacity to build on while addressing violent extremism. They should be continued, but we are not simply recommending a ‘rising tide lifts all boats’ approach. The existing approaches, programmes, and single interventions need to be modified to include isolated and alienated students who may not be acting out in school and thereby calling attention to themselves. This is the ‘child-seeking approach’, which is one of the tenets of the child friendly schools model.
At the same time, we cannot allow ourselves to bias our actions with a Westernized view of introvert and extrovert behaviour. Introspection is not always isolating. Alienation, or at least seeking to be independent from the views of our parents and from the traditional norms in our communities, is usually a healthy part of becoming an adult. At the same time, schools are the first social institution that young people encounter as they begin to recognize and understand their own family and cultural backgrounds and that of the others around
Rather than a narrow interpretation of schools as centres of academic instruction oriented towards economic prosperity in a competitive market place, schools should be reconceptualized as centres of the community, models of democracy, and a force for advancing the health and wellness of community members. By building strong links to the health of the community, the drivers for extremism can be interrupted.
Finally, the narrative of schools as places of violence and failure—particularly in already vulnerable and isolated communities—needs to be interrupted. Think tanks and advocacy groups engaged in broad-based efforts to privatize education, particularly in North America, have attempted to create a sense of crisis in public education and, more broadly, government in general, portraying public institutions as a failing system in order to drive parents to the private sector (Berliner & Biddle, 1995; Thunert, 2003; Anderson & Donchik, 2016; Sturges, 2015; Verger et al., 2016). By creating dissatisfaction and distrust in public institutions, these think tanks are in actual fact interrupting the social linking forces that serve as protective mechanisms against violence and violent extremism.
Schools, particularly those in vulnerable and marginalized communities, need to be seen as safe places that can be entrusted with looking after the best interests of their students and the communities in which they reside. Building trust in social institutions is consistently identified as an important part of PVE and needs to be a core component of any effort to address violent extremism in schools.
7.3 Authentic Challenges
An additional challenge faced in PVE within the school context is identifying the appropriate intervention point. Violence and violent extremism are often conceptualized as an individual act or an isolated problem; however, they are embedded in the broader societal context. This creates a tension between the problem (individual action) and the context (societally based) and suggests that efforts to address violence in one area may be undercut by the context of the other area. A focus on interrupting the push factors influencing an individual student can themselves be interrupted by pull factors originating from the community. Similarly, a focus on strengthening the community without also supporting the individual in many respects represents the current approach that schools take to social change, whereby they rely on individuals to take responsibility for their own learning.
8 Next Steps and Conclusion
Research looking at the efficacy of isolated, individual programmes for addressing violent extremism has found few, if any, effective programmes (Pistone et al., 2019). For the reasons referenced throughout this paper, it seems unlikely that any single programme will result in widespread implementation or change in practice. Instead, advocates need to create comprehensive approaches that encompass the multiple existing programmes already aimed at reducing violence and other antisocial behaviours as well as other policies, services, practices, and changes in schools that strengthen protective factors.
Such a comprehensive approach should conceptualize schools as public institutions for strengthening social linkage and building individual and community trust, for establishing goals and purposes to advance the common good across the community, and for supporting involvement in collective democratic actions, power-sharing, and community empowerment. Importantly, this means countering the political narrative of public schools as being violent, unsafe, and ineffective. Further, it means embracing schools as centres of citizenship and community (Ghosh et al., 2017), rather than providers of individual economic productivity and workforce preparation. Finally, as centres of democratic engagement and empowerment, schools must be empowered to represent the diversity of the community and resist the villainization of competing political views.
Within these broad principles, schools should maintain a specific focus on academic achievement and school connectedness as well as on establishing positive adult relationships, supporting a community of prosocial non-violent peers, and advancing economic opportunity for students and the community (Stewart & Sun, 2004). Schools should be seen as tools for addressing short- and long-term risk factors for violence and violent extremism, including poverty,
References
Anderson, G., & Donchik, L. (2016). Privatizing schooling and policy making: The American Legislative Exchange Council and new political and discursive strategies of education Governance. Educational Policy, 30(2), 322–364.
American Public Health Association. (2018, November 13). Violence is a public health issue: Public health is essential to understanding and treating violence in the U.S. Policy Number 20185. https://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2019/01/28/violence-is-a-public-health-issue
Berliner, D., & Biddle, B. J. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America’s public schools. Perseus Books.
Blank, M., & Melaville, A., & Shah, B. (2003). Making the difference: Research and practice in community schools. Coalition for Community Schools.
Borum, R., & Neer, T. (2017). Terrorism and violent extremism. In V. van Hasselt & M. Bourke (Eds.), Handbook of behavioral criminology (pp. 729–745). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61625-4_41
Briggs, R. (2010). Hearts and minds and votes: The role of democratic participation in countering terrorism. Democratization, 17(2), 272–285.
Butchart, A., & Mikton, C. (2014). Global status report on violence prevention 2014. World Health Organization. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/145086/1/9789241564793_eng.pdf
Canada Centre for Community Engagement Prevention of Violence. (2018). National strategy on countering radicalization to violence. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ntnl-strtg-cntrng-rdclztn-vlnc/ntnl-strtg-cntrng-rdclztn-vlnc-en.pdf
Clemmow, C., Schumann, S., Salman, N., & Gill, P. (2020). The base rate study: Developing base rates for risk factors and indicators for engagement in violent extremism. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 65(3), 865–881. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1556-4029.14282
Cox, E., Leung, R., Baksheev, G., Day, A., Toumbourou, J. W., Miller, P., Kremer, P., & Walker, A. (2016). Violence prevention and intervention programmes for adolescents in Australia: A systematic review. Australian Psychologist, 51(3), 206–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12168
Council of Ministers of Education. (2020). Pan-Canadian systems-level framework on global competencies. https://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/403/Pan-Canadian%20Systems-Level%20Framework%20on%20Global%20Competencies_EN.pdf
Dahlberg, L., & Krug, E. G. (Eds.). (2002). World report on violence and health. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/42495/9241545615_eng.pdf?sequence=1
David-Ferdon, C., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Dahlberg, L. L., Marshall, K. J., Rainford, N., & Hall, J. E. (2016). A comprehensive technical package for the prevention of youth violence and associated risk behaviors. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Eisenman, D. P., & Flavahan, L. (2017). Canaries in the coal mine: Interpersonal violence, gang violence, and violent extremism through a public health prevention lens. International Review of Psychiatry, 29(4), 341–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2017.1343527
Ellis, B. H., & Abdi, S. (2017). Building community resilience to violent extremism through genuine partnerships. American Psychologist, 72(3), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000065
European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2018). Evidence of the link between inclusive education and social inclusion: A review of the literature (S. Symeonidou, Ed.). https://www.european-agency.org/resources/publications/evidence-literature-review
Finley, L. L. (2011). Restorative justice. In L. L. Finley (Ed.), Encyclopedia of school crime and violence (pp. 393–396). ABC-CLIO.
Ghosh, R., Chan, W. Y. A., Manuel, A., & Dilimulati, M. (2017). Can education counter violent religious extremism? Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 23(2), 117–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/11926422.2016.1165713
Global Counter Terrorism Forum. (2017) Abu Dhabi memorandum on good practices for education and countering violent extremism. https://www.thegctf.org/documents/10162/159880/14Sept19_GCTF+Abu+Dhabi+Memorandum.pdf
Heers, M., van Klaveren, C., Groot, W., & Maassen van den Brink, H. (2016). Community schools: What we know and what we need to know. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1016–1051.
Horgan, J., Shortland, N., & Abbasciano, S. (2018). Towards a typology of terrorism involvement: A behavioral differentiation of violent extremist offenders. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 5(2), 84–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/tam0000102
Holt-Lunstad, J., Robles, T. F., & Sbarra, D. A. (2017). Advancing social connection as a public health priority in the United States. American Psychologist, 72(6), 517–530. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/10.1037/amp0000103.supp
Johnson, S. L. (2009). Improving the school environment to reduce school violence: A review of the literature. Journal of School Health, 79(10), 451–465. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2009.00435.x
Juvonen, J., Lessard, L. M., Rastogi, R., Schacter, H. L., & Sayre Smith, D. (2019) Promoting social inclusion in educational settings: Challenges and opportunities. Educational Psychologist, 54(4), 250–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1655645
Kia-Keating, M., Dowdy, E., Morgan, M. L., & Noam, G. G. (2011). Protecting and promoting: An integrative conceptual model for healthy development of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48(3), 220–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.08.006
Kundnani, A. (2009). Spooked! How not to prevent violent extremism. Institute of Race Relations.
Kurlychek, M., Krohn, M., Dong, B., Hall, G., Lizotte, A., & Gibson, C. (2012). Protection from risk: Exploration of when and how neighborhood-level factors can reduce violent youth outcomes. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10(1), 83–106.
Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in relation to students’ academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 229–278. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072002229
Luiselli, J., Putnam, R., Handler, M., & Feinberg, A. (2005). Whole-school positive behaviour support: Effects on student discipline problems and academic performance. Educational Psychology: Problem Behaviour, 25(2–3), 183–198.
McCall, D., & Laitsch, D. (2017). Promoting educational success, health, and human development within education: Making the shift to a systems approach. In I. Rootman, A. Pederson, K. Frohlich, & S. Dupéré (Eds.), Health promotion in Canada: New perspectives on theory, practice, policy, and research (4th ed., pp. 246–267). Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Mendelson, T., Mmari, K., Blum, R. W., Catalano, R. F., & Brindis, C. D. (2018). Opportunity youth: Insights and opportunities for a public health approach to reengage disconnected teenagers and young adults. Public Health Report, 133(1), 54S–64S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033354918799344
Mikton, C., Butchart, A., Dahlberg, L., & Krug, E. (2016). Global status report on violence prevention 2014. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 50(5), 652–659. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/145086/1/9789241564793_eng.pdf.
Moffett, K., Sgro, T., Beers, R., Clarke, R., Papadopoulos, E., & Salem, P. (2016). School-based CVE Strategies. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 668(1), 145–164.
Pate, C. M., Maras, M. A., Whitney, S. D., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2017). Exploring psychosocial mechanisms and interactions: Links between adolescent emotional distress, school connectedness, and educational achievement. School Mental Health, 9, 28–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-016-9202-3
Patton, G. C., Bond, L., Carlin, J. B, Thomas, L., Butler, H., Glover, S., Catalano, R., & Bowes, G. (2006). Promoting social inclusion in schools: A group-randomized trial of effects on student health risk behavior and well-being. American Journal of Public Health, 96(9), 1582–1587. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2004.047399
Pistone, I., Eriksson, E., Beckman, U., Mattson, C., & Sager, M. (2019). A scoping review of interventions for preventing and countering violent extremism: Current status and implications for future research. Journal for Deradicalization, 2019(19), Summer, 1–84.
Policy Research, Justice Canada, Canadian Heritage. (2001). Inclusion for all: A Canadian roadmap to social cohesion. Insights from structured conversations. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/tr01-rt01/tr01.pdf
Portelli, J., & Konecny, C. (2013). Neoliberalism, subversion and democracy in education. Encounters on Education, 14, 87–97.
Satcher, D., & Higginbotham, E. J. (2008). The public health approach to eliminating disparities in health. American Journal of Public Health, 98(Suppl. 1). https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.98.supplement_1.s8
Sheikh, S., Sarwar, S., & Reed, C. (2010). Teaching methods that help to build resilience to extremism. Rapid evidence assessment. Research report DFE-RR120. Department for Education.
Stewart, D., & Sun, J. (2004). How can we build resilience in primary school aged children? The importance of social support from adults and peers in family, school and community settings. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health, 16(S1), S37–S41. https://doi.org/10.1177/101053950401600S10
Sturges, K. (2015). Neoliberalizing educational reform: Bold visions in educational research. Sense.
Thunert, M. (2003). Conservative think tanks in the United States and Canada. In R. O. Schultze, R. Sturm, & D. Eberle (Eds.), Conservative parties and right-wing politics in North America (pp. 229–252). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Ucko, D. H. (2018). Preventing violent extremism through the United Nations: The rise and fall of a good idea. International Affairs, 94(2), 251–270. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix235
United Nations Children’s Fund. (2007). Manual: Child friendly schools. https://www.unicef.org/media/66486/file/Child-Friendly-Schools-Manual.pdf
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2016). A teacher’s guide on the prevention of violent extremism. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000244676
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2017). Preventing violent extremism through education: A guide for policy-makers. https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/policymakr.pdf
United Nations General Assembly. (2006). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 20 September 2006 – The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, sixtieth session. A/RES/60/288. https://undocs.org/A/RES/60/288
United Nations General Assembly. (2015). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 24 December 2015 – Plan of action to prevent violent extremism, seventieth session. A/RES/70/674. https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/70/674
Verger, A., Lubienski, C., & Steiner-Khamsi, G. (Eds.). (2016). World yearbook of education 2016: The global education industry. Routledge.
World Health Organization. (2008). Preventing violence and reducing its impact: How development agencies can help. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/43876/9789241596589_eng.pdf
World Health Organization. (2010). Violence prevention: The evidence. http://www.who.int/violenceprevention/publications/en/index.html
World Health Organization. (2019). School-based violence prevention: A practical handbook. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/324930/9789241515542-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Waytz, A., & Epley, N. (2012). Social connection enables dehumanization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 70–76.
Wynia, M. K., Eisenman, D., & Hanfling, D. (2017). Ideologically motivated violence: A public health approach to prevention. American Journal of Public Health, 107(8), 1244–1246. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2017.303907