对精神卫生保健和安全领域激进化的看法:角色、责任和合作

IF 1.1 4区 社会学 Q3 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Psychology Crime & Law Pub Date : 2022-02-06 DOI:10.1080/1068316X.2022.2030333
B. Sizoo, B. Doosje, B. van Meijel
{"title":"对精神卫生保健和安全领域激进化的看法:角色、责任和合作","authors":"B. Sizoo, B. Doosje, B. van Meijel","doi":"10.1080/1068316X.2022.2030333","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study investigates how perceptions of radicalisation and co-occurring mental health issues differ between mental health care and the security domain, and how these perceptions affect intersectoral collaboration. It is generally thought that intersectoral collaboration is a useful strategy for preventing radicalisation and terrorism, especially when it concerns radicalised persons with mental health issues. It is not clear, however, what perceptions professionals have of radicalisation and collaboration with other disciplines. Data was obtained from focus groups and individual interviews with practitioners and trainers from mental health care and the security domain in the Netherlands. The results show a lack of knowledge about radicalisation in mental health care, whereas in the security domain, there is little understanding of mental health issues. This leads to a mad-bad dichotomy which has a negative effect on collaboration and risk management. Improvement of the intersectoral collaboration by cross-domain familiarization, and strengthening of trust and mutual understanding, should begin with the basic training of professionals in both domains. The Care and Safety Houses in the Netherlands offer a sound base for intersectoral collaboration. Future professionals from different domains ought to be familiarized with each other’s possibilities, limitations, tasks, and roles.","PeriodicalId":47845,"journal":{"name":"Psychology Crime & Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"RETRACTED ARTICLE: Perceptions of radicalisation in mental health care and the security domain: roles, responsibilities, and collaboration\",\"authors\":\"B. Sizoo, B. Doosje, B. van Meijel\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1068316X.2022.2030333\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This study investigates how perceptions of radicalisation and co-occurring mental health issues differ between mental health care and the security domain, and how these perceptions affect intersectoral collaboration. It is generally thought that intersectoral collaboration is a useful strategy for preventing radicalisation and terrorism, especially when it concerns radicalised persons with mental health issues. It is not clear, however, what perceptions professionals have of radicalisation and collaboration with other disciplines. Data was obtained from focus groups and individual interviews with practitioners and trainers from mental health care and the security domain in the Netherlands. The results show a lack of knowledge about radicalisation in mental health care, whereas in the security domain, there is little understanding of mental health issues. This leads to a mad-bad dichotomy which has a negative effect on collaboration and risk management. Improvement of the intersectoral collaboration by cross-domain familiarization, and strengthening of trust and mutual understanding, should begin with the basic training of professionals in both domains. The Care and Safety Houses in the Netherlands offer a sound base for intersectoral collaboration. Future professionals from different domains ought to be familiarized with each other’s possibilities, limitations, tasks, and roles.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47845,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychology Crime & Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychology Crime & Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2030333\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology Crime & Law","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2030333","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:本研究调查了精神卫生保健和安全领域对激进化和共同发生的心理健康问题的看法如何不同,以及这些看法如何影响部门间合作。人们普遍认为,部门间合作是防止激进化和恐怖主义的有用战略,特别是在涉及有精神健康问题的激进化人员时。然而,目前尚不清楚专业人士对激进化和与其他学科的合作有何看法。数据来自焦点小组和对荷兰精神卫生保健和安全领域的从业人员和培训人员的个别访谈。结果表明,在精神卫生保健领域缺乏关于激进化的知识,而在安全领域,对精神卫生问题的了解很少。这导致了一种对协作和风险管理有负面影响的坏与坏的二分法。通过跨领域熟悉和加强信任和相互了解来改善部门间合作,应首先对这两个领域的专业人员进行基本培训。荷兰的护理和安全之家为部门间合作提供了良好的基础。来自不同领域的未来专业人士应该熟悉彼此的可能性、局限性、任务和角色。
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
RETRACTED ARTICLE: Perceptions of radicalisation in mental health care and the security domain: roles, responsibilities, and collaboration
ABSTRACT This study investigates how perceptions of radicalisation and co-occurring mental health issues differ between mental health care and the security domain, and how these perceptions affect intersectoral collaboration. It is generally thought that intersectoral collaboration is a useful strategy for preventing radicalisation and terrorism, especially when it concerns radicalised persons with mental health issues. It is not clear, however, what perceptions professionals have of radicalisation and collaboration with other disciplines. Data was obtained from focus groups and individual interviews with practitioners and trainers from mental health care and the security domain in the Netherlands. The results show a lack of knowledge about radicalisation in mental health care, whereas in the security domain, there is little understanding of mental health issues. This leads to a mad-bad dichotomy which has a negative effect on collaboration and risk management. Improvement of the intersectoral collaboration by cross-domain familiarization, and strengthening of trust and mutual understanding, should begin with the basic training of professionals in both domains. The Care and Safety Houses in the Netherlands offer a sound base for intersectoral collaboration. Future professionals from different domains ought to be familiarized with each other’s possibilities, limitations, tasks, and roles.
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
3.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
83
期刊介绍: This journal promotes the study and application of psychological approaches to crime, criminal and civil law, and the influence of law on behavior. The content includes the aetiology of criminal behavior and studies of different offender groups; crime detection, for example, interrogation and witness testimony; courtroom studies in areas such as jury behavior, decision making, divorce and custody, and expert testimony; behavior of litigants, lawyers, judges, and court officers, both in and outside the courtroom; issues of offender management including prisons, probation, and rehabilitation initiatives; and studies of public, including the victim, reactions to crime and the legal process.
期刊最新文献
An optimal trauma-informed pathway for PTSD, complex PTSD and other mental health and psychosocial impacts of trauma in prisons: an expert consensus statement Mock jurors’ evaluations of eyewitness identification evidence based on appearance change and associated instructions A double standard in evaluating implicit threats Defense attorney perspectives about juvenile interrogations: SROs, parents, and the adolescent defendant Cultural context and sentencing: content analysis of sentencing remarks for Indigenous defendants of domestic violence in the Northern Territory, Australia
×
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