National Study on Extremism in the UK
Dear Research Network, Colleagues and Friends,
Please see the enclosed summary of the report on countering extremism in the UK. Because extremism is frequently ensconced in religious rhetoric, this report has bearing upon religious and ethics scholars.
This information is of particular value whe we consider why our research must be funded. The study of religion and theology, in this case, is not about proselytizing but about understanding why a religious belief may engender violent behavior, analyze the framework which holds together those belief systems, and interrogate the impetus for moral clarity.
The Misogynoir to Mishpat (M2M) Research Network © 2025
Independent Report - Gov.uk
Prepared for the Commission for Countering Extremism (CCE)
This report has been independently commissioned. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the UK Government or the Commission for Countering Extremism.
Copyright © 2023 Daniel Allington
Executive summary
As a result of systemic problems both in studying extremism and in communicating the findings of such study, there are likely to be substantial gaps in the knowledge base around extremism in the UK.
Above all, there appears to be a lack of research on specific extremist movements in the UK today — especially when it comes to Islamist extremism. This suggests that it would be unwise to assume that publicly available research on extremism provides a sound basis for UK government policy.
Findings of the two studies reported here suggest that:
The study of extremism is highly politicised, and its politicisation presents clear potential for silencing and exclusion of certain perspectives
Projects supported by the major public research funders appear to be skewed towards studies of extremism in general, as well as towards studies of the far right, especially with regard to the UK of the present day and the recent past
There may also be comparable skews in research carried out without such support (for example, within think tanks)
There are many obstacles to collecting relevant data by conventional means, including when trying to access data and research participants via state agencies, such as HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), and when seeking approval from risk-averse research ethics committees
The use of ‘naturally occurring’ online data in place of more conventionally collected data raises problems of representativeness, and also does not always avoid difficulties with regard to ethical approval processes
Lack of data-sharing makes it difficult for stakeholders to seek second opinions, and leads to duplication of effort
Dissemination of research findings on extremist groups and their associates and supporters is hampered by several factors, including online intimidation, credible physical threats, and strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs, also known as ‘lawfare’ or ‘intimidation lawsuits’)
The skew towards generalism appears problematic in that policy applications for research on general phenomena (for example, radicalisation) may be unclear in the absence of research on how those phenomena are manifest ‘on the ground’ (for example, in the recruitment practices of specific organisations). The skew towards studies of rightwing extremism, and away from studies of Islamism (especially in a contemporary UK context), could also perhaps be seen as problematic, given that Islamist extremism proportionally represents a far greater terror threat in the UK (see, for example, the Independent Review of Prevent), although that is an inherently political matter.
This report further suggests the existence of multiple social and ideological pressures which could potentially distort the research field:
The skew towards general studies may be partly explained by an academic tendency to devalue ‘descriptive’ studies of specific phenomena: ambitious researchers are incentivised to target high prestige journals which tend to favour general and theoretical research, and it may be that such research is also favoured by peer reviewers of grant applications
It may also be partly explained by the risks run in researching specific organisations which may respond with legal, physical, and other threats (see above)
The skew towards studies of the far right may be partly explained by a tendency to focus on short-term government priorities, with one ‘hot topic’ at a time attracting funding (right-wing extremism having been the most recent ‘hot topic’)
There is evidence of possibly justified concern that studying Islamist extremism might lead to a researcher’s being labelled as racist
There is also evidence of possibly justified concern that being perceived to be critical of actions supporting ‘progressive’ or left-wing causes might lead to negative professional consequences (‘cancellation’)
Given another study’s finding that a significant minority of academics may discriminate against funding applications on ideological grounds (whether from a leftor right-wing perspective), there appears to be a plausible risk of silencing and exclusion through peer review, especially as the typical approach to peer review of grant proposals is one that appears particularly vulnerable to bias
Beyond this, it seems likely that fear of ideological discrimination may have a general chilling effect, potentially leading researchers to avoid engaging in projects that they suspect could lead to controversy that might be harmful to their careers
The problem of possible ideological bias in peer-review could be mitigated through adoption of open peer review (increasing reviewer accountability) or through a transparent process of reasoned adjudication between contradictory reviews on the part of an identifiable individual (increasing funder accountability). Awarding small grants through open competition with quotas for particular kinds of extremism might help to ensure that study of and expertise in key areas continues to be supported despite cyclical shifts. Universities and HMPPS could assist by ensuring that their approval processes do not obstruct public interest research on extremism.
A governmental commitment to notifying researchers when their work is cited in briefing documents or makes any other contribution would also help to ensure the continued supply of useful research, especially where this is not funded by the government. Value could be added to government-procured research through engagement of entities from across the research ecosystem in the design, analysis, interpretation, and dissemination stages of research projects commissioned from generic research providers, as well as through requirements for data sharing.
Lastly, and perhaps most urgently, the government and the Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA) could publicly acknowledge the threat which SLAPPs present to the sharing of information about extremist groups, their associates, and their supporters. Potential remedies might include legislation, as well as guidance issued and action taken by the SRA.