Research limitations

As with all studies which rely upon human participants, there are a range of potential limitations, which, while the author tried to anticipate them as much as possible, may have affected the answers given by the interviewees. These limitations are acknowledged and addressed here.

Reflexivity is a critical dimension of any qualitative research (Altheide and Johnson 2011). Among those issues of which the author was self-aware throughout was the very effect that the identity of the author herself might have upon the interviewing process. The fact that the author is a white, female, non-Muslim certainly led to at least two of the interviewees being initially sceptical about the extent to which they presumed that the author understood about matters of the Islamic faith. Both interviewees made a point of ‘dumbing down’ their answers and not discussing matters of religion in the initial questions which they faced, but were assured by the interviewer once they realised that a level of understanding of their faith had been shown. In essence, the author ‘passed the test’ on Islamic knowledge and they then felt comfortable proceeding in the style in which they were used to discussing the subject.

Conversely, three of the right-wing interviewees presumed a much greater level of knowledge on the topic of their ideology, which may have been influenced by the fact that the interviewer was of the same ethnic profile. Two interviewees were concerned about confidentiality issues in their interviews given that the author was not a programme 'insider', but initial

apprehension was relieved when they were informed that the author has security clearance at the standard that they also maintained. They then felt comfortable talking about the work they did for the UK government in the knowledge that any confidential information that they did discuss would not be used by the author in this work.

The next set of possible limitations refers more directly to the interviewees themselves. When using interview participants, researchers are naturally reliant upon them being as truthful as possible in their answers. In some cases, it appeared that participants were perhaps

overstating the knowledge that they had in a certain area, and when this happened, the author probed further to get them to bring forward specific evidence to support their claims. While not accusing the participants of deliberate untruthfulness, there was on a very small number

of occasions the feeling that certain interviewees were exaggerating the role that they played or their experience in the area. This was taken account of when analysing their transcripts. This plays into a larger phenomenon of potentially trying to please the interviewer by either

answering questions that they did not have the knowledge to do so, or saying what they thought the interviewer wanted to hear (Bryman 2012, Altheide and Johnson 2011). However, by and large the participants were very honest in admitting when a question was out of their area of expertise, and some were very authoritative in what they did say even when it was plainly not what the interviewer was potentially expecting to hear, or did not fit well with the line of questioning. In some cases, interviewees were discussing events which happened more than 10 years previously, so the potential problem of reconstruction of memory should be acknowledged, but again interviewees were willing to admit when they could not recall something fully. However, it is possible still that limitations existed in their recollection of events, and indeed at least three of the interviewees had been interviewed on the topic of their participation in extremist movements on multiple occasions, so they may have given answers which were somewhat pre-empted or prepared.

It was clear that at least two of the interviewees had had negative experiences working with their government on de-radicalisation programmes, and this was evident in their responses to the questions and tone in which they answered. This meant that the author felt that some of their answers were strongly affected by these experiences, and so those answers with obvious and undue negativity were given careful consideration as to how they were included in the analysis and the final model. Finally, the authenticity of the interviewees, in terms of their backgrounds and their experience, was researched as fully as possible by the author, to ensure that the experiences which they claim to have had, both as members of extremist

organisations or in their work on de-radicalisation or counter-radicalisation programmes, were real. The question as to whether the former members of extremist organisations had indeed been radicalised (rather than them being members but not in fact gone through the process of radicalisation), was tested in questions asking about their commitment to the ideology and the potential of committing a terrorist or violent act at the time. All participants who claimed to have been radicalised did indeed admit to either having carried out such an act or the willingness at the time to do so. In one case the participant had never been asked such a question, and was indeed emotional when they realised that they would have gone to such an extent had the leader of the movement asked them to do so.