明显和有效?防范暴力极端主义评价研究的挑战、潜力与局限

IF 0.4 4区 社会学 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS International Journal of Conflict and Violence Pub Date : 2020-09-17 DOI:10.4119/IJCV-3801
Inga Nehlsen, Janusz Biene, M. Coester, Frank Greuel, Björn Milbradt, Andreas Armborst
{"title":"明显和有效?防范暴力极端主义评价研究的挑战、潜力与局限","authors":"Inga Nehlsen, Janusz Biene, M. Coester, Frank Greuel, Björn Milbradt, Andreas Armborst","doi":"10.4119/IJCV-3801","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Radicalization and its prevention have increasingly become the subject of public debate in academia and in the political arena. The impact of prevention efforts is subject to public scrutiny – not only because these efforts, if successful, contribute to the common good, but also because many countries have increased public spending on prevention based on this justification. Evaluations can analyze impact and effectiveness and thereby advance knowledge about how prevention operates within different social contexts and what kind of outcomes it produces. However, there are significant challenges to developing a robust basis of evidence in the field of Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE). On the one hand, practitioners and scholars debate the notion of “evidence-based approaches”, e.g. with regard to methods of data collection or appropriate evaluation designs, while some fundamentally question the concept itself. On the other hand, expectations regarding the capability and feasibility of outcome evaluations are often inflated and incompatible with real-world conditions in PVE practice. This article addresses some of the challenges that researchers face when conducting outcome evaluations in the field of PVE and it suggests pragmatic solutions. It sheds light on the state of evaluation in PVE, focusing on the German context, and gives recommendations pertaining to the commissioning, planning, implementation and utilization of (outcome) evaluations.","PeriodicalId":45781,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Conflict and Violence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4119/IJCV-3801","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evident and Effective? The Challenges, Potentials and Limitations of Evaluation Research on Preventing Violent Extremism\",\"authors\":\"Inga Nehlsen, Janusz Biene, M. Coester, Frank Greuel, Björn Milbradt, Andreas Armborst\",\"doi\":\"10.4119/IJCV-3801\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Radicalization and its prevention have increasingly become the subject of public debate in academia and in the political arena. The impact of prevention efforts is subject to public scrutiny – not only because these efforts, if successful, contribute to the common good, but also because many countries have increased public spending on prevention based on this justification. Evaluations can analyze impact and effectiveness and thereby advance knowledge about how prevention operates within different social contexts and what kind of outcomes it produces. However, there are significant challenges to developing a robust basis of evidence in the field of Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE). On the one hand, practitioners and scholars debate the notion of “evidence-based approaches”, e.g. with regard to methods of data collection or appropriate evaluation designs, while some fundamentally question the concept itself. On the other hand, expectations regarding the capability and feasibility of outcome evaluations are often inflated and incompatible with real-world conditions in PVE practice. This article addresses some of the challenges that researchers face when conducting outcome evaluations in the field of PVE and it suggests pragmatic solutions. It sheds light on the state of evaluation in PVE, focusing on the German context, and gives recommendations pertaining to the commissioning, planning, implementation and utilization of (outcome) evaluations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45781,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Conflict and Violence\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4119/IJCV-3801\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Conflict and Violence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4119/IJCV-3801\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Conflict and Violence","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4119/IJCV-3801","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

激进化及其预防日益成为学术界和政界公开辩论的主题。预防工作的影响受到公众的监督,这不仅是因为这些努力如果成功,将有助于共同利益,而且还因为许多国家根据这一理由增加了用于预防的公共开支。评估可以分析影响和有效性,从而提高对预防在不同社会背景下如何运作以及产生何种结果的认识。然而,在防止暴力极端主义领域建立强有力的证据基础面临重大挑战。一方面,实践者和学者对“循证方法”的概念进行了争论,例如关于数据收集方法或适当的评估设计,而一些人则从根本上质疑概念本身。另一方面,在PVE实践中,关于结果评估的能力和可行性的期望常常被夸大,并且与现实条件不相容。本文讨论了研究人员在进行PVE领域的结果评估时面临的一些挑战,并提出了实用的解决方案。它揭示了PVE的评估状况,重点是德国的背景,并提出了有关(结果)评估的委托、规划、实施和利用的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evident and Effective? The Challenges, Potentials and Limitations of Evaluation Research on Preventing Violent Extremism
Radicalization and its prevention have increasingly become the subject of public debate in academia and in the political arena. The impact of prevention efforts is subject to public scrutiny – not only because these efforts, if successful, contribute to the common good, but also because many countries have increased public spending on prevention based on this justification. Evaluations can analyze impact and effectiveness and thereby advance knowledge about how prevention operates within different social contexts and what kind of outcomes it produces. However, there are significant challenges to developing a robust basis of evidence in the field of Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE). On the one hand, practitioners and scholars debate the notion of “evidence-based approaches”, e.g. with regard to methods of data collection or appropriate evaluation designs, while some fundamentally question the concept itself. On the other hand, expectations regarding the capability and feasibility of outcome evaluations are often inflated and incompatible with real-world conditions in PVE practice. This article addresses some of the challenges that researchers face when conducting outcome evaluations in the field of PVE and it suggests pragmatic solutions. It sheds light on the state of evaluation in PVE, focusing on the German context, and gives recommendations pertaining to the commissioning, planning, implementation and utilization of (outcome) evaluations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
32 weeks
期刊最新文献
Identity, Significance, Sensation or Justice? Different Motives which Attract to Radical Ideas Social Worldviews and Personal Beliefs as Risk Factors for Radicalization: A Comparison Between Muslims and non-Muslims Living in Poland Change in Juvenile Offending Versatility Predicted by Individual, Familial, and Environmental Risks Justice Sensitivity Is Positively and Negatively Related to Prejudice and Discrimination College Women’s Experience of Verbal Sexual Coercion and Responses to a Sexual Assault Vignette
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1