This section of the chapter will examine a brief overview of the data in its totality prior to discussing specific findings, which is related in later chapters to the research questions. To place the codes within context, examples will be given of both the primary and secondary codes created using the NVIVO20 programme. The way in which the codes have been identified has been based upon the experiences of each interview and on notes taken at the time, plus unspoken communication such as body language or tone of voice. The opinions are the respondents’ only, and how they relate to the research questions will be examined further in the subsequent analysis chapters. However, given the time restraints of the research and the word count, not all of the cluster will be examined in the analysis chapters, only those which were dominant and pertain specifically to the research questions. This overview will present all the clusters identified, although in a limited form.
These statements are the perceptions of the respondents concerning the drivers identified within Prevent and their reflections as to the impact of policy such as Prevent. This is not a criticism of Prevent, rather it is a look at how the document
132 | P a g e
is being perceived by those groups who may feel the impact of the policy at a street level. However, not all the respondents were in agreement regarding Prevent or the drivers identified within. Therefore, I have occasionally pointed out an individual’s opinion which is not representative of the whole if it is relevant within the context of the analysis. The data was first subdivided into four identified primary codes. These were then subdivided through a secondary coding phase into a further four secondary sub-codes.
Figure 1 Representation of the Coding Process
Phase Two Questions
Many of the questions asked during the semi-structured interview were an organic progression from the constructed questions, which allowed for an evolution off topic. As I have previously discussed, phase two was shaped in part by the findings in phase one and the literature review performed prior to research commencement. The constructed questions asked during the interviews were:
In the UK government’s Prevent strategy, drivers are identified as playing some part in the radicalisation of extremists, what are your thoughts about this?'
‘The government suggest that support for extremism is significantly associated with the perception of discrimination and the experience of
133 | P a g e
racial or religious harassment. It is also associated with a negative view of policing. Do you agree or disagree with this? If so why, if not why not?’
‘The government argues that approval of violent extremism is higher amongst young people. Do you agree or disagree with this? If so why, if not why not?’
‘The government suggests that people from lower income and socio- economic groups are more likely to support extremism, do you agree or disagree with this? If so why, if not why not?
The questions included aspects which would examine language used in Prevent, such as drivers, vulnerability and radicalisation, but they allowed the respondents to consider the problem of extremism from within communities which were identified as risky by the policy. Throughout the next part of this chapter, we examine the identified clusters and look at examples of one within each secondary sub-code to demonstrate the process of coding. The clusters were representative of the majority opinions within the data and, as with any coding process, could have continued to be subdivided further into ever-decreasing code categories. However, it was determined, due to time constraints and the small sample size, that the subdivisions of four primaries into four secondary codes was sufficient to explore the data. The code’s titles were the working titles, and were changed during the writing process, although the categories themselves have remained the same.
134 | P a g e
Primary Code One: The Drivers of Radicalisation
Figure 2 The Drivers of Radicalisation Sub-Divided into Secondary Codes
The first primary code identified during the coding process was The Drivers of
Radicalisation. This was naturally identified within the data, as the structured
questions have especially asked the respondents for their opinions on the drivers identified in Prevent, and was therefore on topic. It was also the largest of the identified primary codes. A secondary phase of coding identified a need for a subdivision of this category, which established four secondary codes: rejection of drivers, acceptance of drivers, radical language within policy and the ramifications from the identification of drivers. This primary category and the secondary categories were derived from constructed questions regarding the drivers identified within Prevent, as one would expect. Questions then developed as a consequence of the constructed questions, as respondents expanded and elaborated their positions on the topic.
When speaking to the respondents about the identified drivers being a factor in someone’s proclivity for radical actions and/or leaving people vulnerable to
Radicalisation
Rejection of drivers Aceptance of drivers Radical language within policy the identification of Ramifications from drivers
135 | P a g e
radicalisation, all the respondents related the drivers identified in Prevent with their own lives and situations. There was an overall dismissive attitude towards the drivers identified, the respondents believing, rather, that the identification of drivers was reducing the complex process of radicalisation to its base elements. There was a shared belief from all 12 respondents that an oversimplification of the groups under consideration was also problematic, as if revealing deep ingrained assumptions about minorities and poorer communities. The coding was an interesting process, as at first glance it seemed as if some of the respondents agreed with the drivers identified in Prevent in principle. However, when the respondents considered each one in relation to their own experiences, they subsequently changed their position. This was not to say they consciously changed their positions, it was just that the answers did not equate to what they said in the first instance. Whilst coding it was therefore very important to consider the context in which the statements were given and the narrative running through the discussion, rather than simply taking one sentence as the answer. By considering the whole rather than its parts we get a clearer picture emerging, for example, Grace, discussing the drivers of radicalisation, suggested:
Ermm I think that the causal factors [talking about the drivers] are probably all correct but I think there are more, it says people on a low income and low income areas I think that’s wrong. Coz it could be from any areas and from any incomes on all different levels.
In this one paragraph Grace agreed, but then went on to challenge the drivers identified in Prevent. A benefit of being the interviewer and the coder meant that this type of variation in responses could be placed into context regarding the rest of
136 | P a g e
the interview, and subtle cues, such as body movement, tone of voice and inflection, could help me navigate through the coding process.
Primary Code Two: Power and Conflict
Figure 3 Power and Conflict Sub-Divided into Secondary Codes
The second primary code identified within the data was Power and Conflict. This was identified as there were a number of references by respondents to the dynamic between those perceived by them as powerful within society and those perceived to be powerless. Power was subsequently identified as having the ability to influence not only one’s own life but the lives of others. The respondents’ understanding and definition of power is the definition used throughout this research.
Power, like many of the terms under consideration, is a contested term dependent on one’s position and understanding. The struggle between the powerful and powerless has often been considered within academic literature (see Tombs and Whyte, 2003; Braithwaite, 2013). The subdivision of this primary code into four secondary codes again was then a natural progression through continued analysis. As example of a secondary code, media and discourse, was identified due to, again, all of the respondents at some point during their interviews talking about the
Power and
Conflict
Media and
137 | P a g e
influence of the press. All of them spoke about media influences concerning terrorism and radicalisation. Whether the amount of media coverage concerning radicalisation, Islam or Islamophobia was correct, it was the respondents’ perceptions of this coverage which was important in understanding its influence. The respondents were convinced that the media was the key source of information for most people, whether that was tabloid newspapers or information via television. The independence and objectivity of the media was also considered and challenged, as well as the freedom of the press to report without an agenda. The right to free speech was also considered by the respondents as under threat, a point exampled by James, who suggested:
Freedom of speech depends on who you are eh, do you understand what I mean eh? Freedom of speech like, it doesn’t exist in this country, it’s a fallacy to believe that it does.
James sums up the dominant feeling throughout the interviews that free speech was an illusion created by those in power to placate the powerless. Again, hearing the shifts in volume gives a far better idea of the passion showed by some of the respondents concerning this topic. Again, a benefit of being the interviewer and the coder made this link easier to define and account for within the codes.
138 | P a g e
Primary Code Three: Social Cohesion
Figure 4 Social Cohesion Sub-Divided into Secondary Codes
The third primary code was Social Cohesion, a code identified within the data as many of the references that the respondents used talked about the way in which society affected their lived experiences through a number of differing factors. These factors were placed within the identified secondary codes: pre-crime legislation, multiculturalism, racism and the rise of the right and rejection of social cohesion. For example, pre-crime legislation was identified by the respondents as something they were deeply concerned about. It has been suggested that ‘pre-crime links coercive state actions to suspicion without the need for charge, prosecution or conviction’ (McCulloch and Pickering, 2009: 628). When talking about new police powers of arrest, the respondents suggested that being arrested without charge based on anonymous tips, for example, was worrying. The use of pre-crime was seen as a way to silence those groups within society who were classified as a ‘problem’. The criminalisation of thought through the inclusion of non-violent radicalisation in policy such as Prevent was blamed, for example, for the removal
Social Cohesion
Pre-crime
139 | P a g e
of free speech, open debate and challenge towards the government. This can be exampled by Edward, who suggested that the only legitimate opinion accepted in Britain was the state’s opinion, suggesting:
You are free to give an opinion as long as it’s the state’s opinion, freedom of speech doesn’t exist in this country by a long shot.
Edward’s response was representative of the dominant narrative within the interviews. The way in which the opportunity for voicing radical protest had changed within Britain was another theme considered by the respondents. Although all of the respondents were totally opposed to groups such as the National Front or radical Islamist groups, many of them suggested that they had a right to their opinions and that open debate and discussion was the only way to change opinions. The silencing of debate was seen as dangerous, as without debate the only recourse for expression was physical action and that was considered far more dangerous. Edward’s statement, although placed within this code cluster, would also have fitted nicely into the previous code of power and control, as it addressed free speech. However, placed within the context of the conversation, this statement fitted within the realms of power, as Edward had been speaking about how power is maintained through a restriction of radical voices. It is these coding subtleties that could be achieved through participating in every stage of the interview process.
140 | P a g e
Primary code Four: Place and Identity
Figure 5 Place and Identity Sub-Divided into Secondary Codes
The final primary code to be identified was Place and Identity, which was again subsequently divided into four secondary codes during the second phase of coding. The codes identified were: personal narrative, a city under attack, the generation effect and geographical impact.
As one would expect, the experiences of the respondents were identified as playing a role in their opinions regarding the questions asked. Personal experiences help to shape not only the individual’s reality, but also their shared social reality. As such, within the primary code of place and identity, personal narratives have been identified as an important secondary code structure. If we take the example of Isabella, she faced daily torment and physical attack as a mixed-race child growing up in Liverpool in the 1940s. The racism faced by her and her family was constructed by them as a rite of passage, to whit, they exhibited social resilience. When asked about negative experiences with organisations such as the police or
Place and Identity Personal
141 | P a g e
members of the general public being identified as a driver which had the capacity to influence someone’s susceptibility for radicalisation, she was quite clear about social resilience based on her own experiences, saying:
So however bad the police are now or so people say, it’s not as bad as it was then, my dad wouldn’t have become an evil man. That how I know the government are wrong when they say people change if they have a bad experience.
As I discussed in Chapter Two, the assumption that previous learning is eradicated automatically was rejected by the respondents. Isabella is representative of the majority opinions (Edward, Molly, Brima, Airyana, Raymon, Jazmin, Grace) in rejecting the policy premise that morals can be removed or completely reshaped. In conclusion, although the respondents may not be representative of all sections of society, or even their own communities, it is their opinions that I am interested in as a researcher. Research on a small scale such as this can only dip its feet into community opinions, trusting in the recruitment process to deliver a diverse sample of any population. As such, it is important to allow the clusters and codes to develop naturally without any preconceived theory, in line, again, with a grounded approach. Entering the coding process with no preconceived categories allowed for the primary clusters to develop due to the observed patterns of responses. The second phase of coding then looked for examples within each code block, again, based on the identified characteristics from the first code. Variables which affected responses were also then taken into consideration, such as language, age or ethnicity/race.
142 | P a g e
For example, if we consider language, there was a generational difference which must be considered. Some older respondents described themselves as coloured or half-caste, terminology which is now deemed inappropriate. The younger respondents described themselves using a more modern terminology, such as Black, Brown or Mixed-race. The generational differences also played a part in the way the historical narrative was interpreted by respondents, with the older respondents having a greater experience of previous legislation through the 1960s, 70s and 80s. This meant that they could link, through experience, the similarities in stop and search legislation under the remit of counter-terrorism to the abolished stop and search (SUS) laws, unlike the younger respondents who had never experienced SUS but were more aware of current targeting.