Prevent duty in higher education: tackling disinformation and managing events
At a glance
The Prevent duty requires education providers to help prevent the risk of people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. This includes safeguarding learners from extremist ideologies and radicalisation. In order to help better understand what further support or guidance might be required to support higher education (HE) providers to address any anti-Prevent sentiment and manage events with external speakers, the Department for Education (DfE) commissioned IFF Research to undertake qualitative research. As part of this, in-depth interviews were conducted with those responsible for the implementation and delivery of the Prevent duty in a sample of HE providers; as well focus groups and interviews with student representatives to gain insight into this critical area. The findings are being used to help support institutions to protect students and staff from risks of radicalisation.
About the client
The Department for Education (DfE) is a government department responsible for children’s services and education in England, including child protection, and all stages of education including higher education.
Challenges and objectives
In 2021, the government appointed William Shawcross CVO to conduct an Independent Review of Prevent, a strand of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy. That review resulted in a series of recommendations including to investigate further how HE institutions might be better supported to 1) assess the risk of radicalisation across events with external speakers, and 2) address any anti-Prevent sentiment they may come across within their institution.
In response, DfE commissioned IFF Research to undertake research which aligned with the two recommendations.
One of the core challenges faced by the research was the ability to capture the breadth of different roles feeding into this area, as well as achieve the number of interviews and focus groups which were required to provide sufficient evidence. We recognised that there were sensitivities in play that we needed to consider. In particular, that the sensitivity of the topic may discourage some from taking part and/or providing honest and open feedback. There is also a balance providers tread between their Prevent duty and managing freedom of speech.
Solution
DfE requested that the research followed a qualitative approach in order to provide the detailed and contextualised understanding that was required. The research involved a series of in-depth interviews and group sessions which were split into two phases to capture the views of Prevent Leads (those responsible for the implementation and delivery of the Prevent agenda in each institution), which were then used to inform the development of the research tools used to interview staff and student representatives.
The first phase of the research took place in the Summer of 2023 and involved in-depth interviews with 16 Prevent Leads at HE institutions.
The next phase of the research consisted of interviews and focus groups with staff and student representatives. As mentioned, one of the key challenges faced related to recruitment. In order to get the numbers required, multiple recruitment techniques were used. This included recruitment through the first phase of interviews with Prevent Leads, leads generated via desk research, and contacts obtained through other participants. A total of 21 focus groups were completed across 9 HE institutions, with 45 individuals interviewed including 17 student representatives and 28 HE institution and student union staff. The student representative participants included student union presidents and officer, mentors, and wellbeing officers.
Throughout the research, it was essential to ‘sell’ the wider benefits of the study’s aims, and provide reassurances of confidentiality and anonymity, to encourage participation.
Impact
The findings from this research have been used to help strengthen DfE support and guidance to help institutions protect students and staff from risks of radicalisation. For example, the findings have informed the development of HE-specific guidance and promotional materials including that published on GOV.UK that challenge negative misperceptions of Prevent.
Specifically, the research highlighted that awareness of the Prevent duty is high among key roles and there is limited evidence of anti-Prevent sentiment on campus. However, it concluded that training could be strengthened and provided in a more tailored way for staff and student groups.
The research also identified challenges that staff and student representatives faced in identifying radicalisation risks, including the fact that radicalisation is a vast and constantly changing issue, making it difficult to “keep up”. It also highlighted areas where practices and resources could be improved and which have or are being built into revised sector-wide guidance and communications.
Moreover, processes for booking external speakers to speak at HE institutions were found to be generally well-understood by staff and student reps with hands-on experience, though there were challenges related to time and resource constraints. Our research also highlighted that providing a central resource with guidance about how best to undertake due diligence on potential speaks would further support this process.