left to my own devices – occasional thoughts on higher education

Image by Wepik on Freepik

Last week someone sent me a link to this article in the Financial Times (£) about the Prevent Duty, and emerging discussions about the relationship of this to neurodiversity.

It’s a debate currently underway in the UK, on the basis of ‘estimates from psychiatrists working with counter-terrorism police suggesting that people with autism account for 13 per cent of their casework, against a population base rate of 1%’.

One of the things that struck me was that last week I’d also come across two examples of training related to the Prevent Duty, by two different organisations, that cited the exact same figure.  The three instances together suggest a conscious and coordinated attempt nationally to raise the profile of this issue.

the evidence

The FT article suggests that in many arenas this is being considered and discussed in a nuanced way.  Which is good, given the nature of the underpinning evidence.

For example one recent literature review concluded that:

existing research cannot conclude that individuals with ASD are any more vulnerable to, or any more at risk of, terrorism engagement than individuals in the general population

Druitt, F, Smith D, Spaaij, R, Kernot, D and Laver, A (2023), ‘Do autism spectrum disorders (ASD) increase the risk of terrorism engagement? A literature review of the research evidence, theory and interpretation, and a discussion reframing the research-practice debate’, Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, 18(3), pp.307-32

And a second literature review found that ‘there is no evidence to directly link neurodivergence to violent extremism’, while noting that neurodivergence ‘may contextualise vulnerability to such engagement’.

I am, though, a little concerned of the risk that what the research is and isn’t telling us may get lost in its applicaction.

its use

That I’ve come across the 1%:13% contrast set out above three times in the last week, suggests that this statistic is in the process of being cascaded across the hundreds if not thousands of UK organisations (large and small) that regularly train and update people about Prevent (as part of their safeguarding training).

The chain for this cascade runs from the national bodies/agencies working in this area; to the staff in providers who will then train relevant colleagues; to the staff ‘on the ground’ who have been trained and who will interpret this information and then apply it. I worry about the chance that the nuance evident in the debate in national policy and academic circles may in some cases be simplified and potentially even distorted, as the message works it way down this chain.

And if that happens the result could well be inappropriate and un-evidenced assertions, which start to have unintended and negative consequences for people who are neurodivergent.  It’s essential that great care is taken to ensure that this doesn’t happen.