Dr. Gordon Clubb
Dr. Gordon Clubb
Dr. Gordon Clubb
Dr. Gordon Clubb
Associate Professor in Terrorism (Global Securities Challenges)
University of Leeds
Dr Gordon Clubb is an Associate Professor in Terrorism at the University of Leeds in the UK. His current research projects include studies on messenger credibility in violence prevention counter-narratives, transparent communication and support for Prevent, and building confidence in violence prevention work through standards. He is the Lead Investigator in a 3-year ESRC-funded project entitled “Building Support for Rehabilitation and Reintegration of Extremists through Transparent Communications.” He has published five books, including most recently, Former Extremists: Preventing and Countering Violence (Oxford University Press, 2024).
Interviewer: Mikkel Dack, RCHGHR/History
Can you begin by telling me a bit about yourself – professional background, institutional affiliations, research interests?
I have worked at the University of Leeds for over ten years as an Associate Professor in Terrorism, where I also did my PhD. My PhD was on social movement de-radicalization in Northern Ireland, and it was during my fieldwork I became fascinated with the work of former prisoners in violence prevention. My work on de-radicalization evolved to look at community and public support for reintegration, which is now my main research interest. Somehow, despite my qualitative research background, I now spend a lot of time doing quantitative survey experiments to understand public attitudes to counter-terrorism and how communications can build trust.
What is the current research project you’re working on? What inspired you to pursue this particular topic?
Currently, one of my projects is looking at the role of former extremists in violence prevention. We have just completed a book on the subject with amazing contributions from academics and practitioners. It is freely available through Open Access, so I don’t feel too bad about plugging it here: https://academic.oup.com/book/59011
My research on this subject has typically sought to understand how and when “Formers” can play a positive role in preventing violence, whether through public communications or counter-narratives, or as peer mentors. Building on that, we used the Delphi method to identify a series of internationally agreed standards among practitioners. Now we are working with organisations internationally to implement the standards, which I believe can provide better support for “Formers” and provide greater trust and confidence in their involvement in violence prevention.
As to what inspired me to pursue this topic, over the years I have got to know people working in this area and what they do. I’ve heard a lot of the criticisms and scepticism about “Formers” being involved in violence prevention, and while I appreciate and understand the nuance in this topic, I don’t believe this should exclude people who are really committed to helping others.
How do you believe your research on violence prevention contributes to the existing scholarship and to our broader understanding of de-radicalization?
My work on de-radicalization has really tried to push against this understanding of de-radicalization as a substantial change in mindset, or at least to give space for a broader understanding of what constitutes de-radicalization. As a field we are good at understanding that radicalisation is a process but when it comes to de-radicalization then typically people are viewed in zero sum terms, especially when it comes to the debate of involving “Formers” in violence prevention. There are some contexts where “Formers” may not be as de-radicalized as one would expect or like, yet this is what makes them effective in violence prevention. Holding some affinity with old networks, building on stories of the past, or holding on to some radical views (but articulated in an anti-violence frame) can reach different audiences. Of course, I appreciate in Western contexts that may be different, but my work has sought to help shift away from vague notions of de-radicalization towards more appropriate “screening measures.”
Beyond “Formers,” my work on de-radicalization has sought to contribute to existing scholarship by expanding the focus of de-radicalization programmes to better include community and public attitudes. You can have an incredibly successful programme but if those participants face a hostile reintegrating environment then it can undermine the programme’s work. I hope my research has added to understanding how programmes can communicate with the public to build trust and reduce a backlash.
Can you tell us about your source base(s) (material, human, etc.)? Where are they located? Have they been accessed by scholars in the past? How are you interpreting them?
Nowadays I work with large survey experiments to look at public attitudes to counter-terrorism (including de-radicalization). So far, the surveys I have conducted have been on UK representative samples, mostly recently I worked on one with a German population.
Has your research uncovered anything significant thus far? What have you learned about your topic?
We have a paper published last week that looks at messenger credibility in delivering violence prevention narratives among a German population sample. It is a replication study of our previous work which wanted to test the belief that former extremists are perceived as more credible than other messengers. The new study adds and builds upon that, and the findings are, again, very interesting. Firstly, former extremists are not viewed as more or less credible compared to other messengers such as the police – that underlines the general move toward seeing “Formers” as a potential part of the PCVE landscape, but with a more realistic understanding of how people perceive them. Second is the challenge to the assumption that official security messengers such as the police should not be the messenger because of a lack of credibility – our UK survey showed they were actually the most credible, the German sample shows they are broadly similar, and in another project I have data that shows not one alternative messenger can consistently outperform counter-terrorism policing messengers in terms of perceived trustworthiness. That’s significant because oftentimes police have kind of taken a back seat in messaging, whereas our findings show, that at least with a simulated primary and secondary intervention audience, security officials are seen to be relatively more credible compared to the other alternative messengers we tested.
What do you hope to achieve with your research, both within the academic community and in terms of its impact on society as a whole?
My main focus is to do rigorous and innovative research that has an impact and benefit for non-academic communities. While I’d like to have a major impact on the academic community, I’m more passionate about doing good research that has an impact on practical work. In terms of my work on “Formers,” I really hope the “Formers” working in violence prevention find the work I do is useful and supportive in how they seek to contribute to the field. Now, that has been tricky because you don’t control what the findings in research are. Also, the work I’ve done on Standards has been aimed more at audiences who are sceptical about involving “Formers” - what I hope that work achieves is to give organisations the confidence to continue working with “Formers” and to generally improve work in the field that can reduce some of the challenges and risks of involving “Formers.” I should add those challenges and risks can come from the organisations towards “Formers.” so it has to be clear that the purpose of developing Standards is to provide support for “Formers.”
Beyond that, linking back to de-radicalisation – I want my research to help find ways to build public trust in these important programmes, and counter-terrorism more generally, in a way that fit with values of transparency and democracy. Rehabilitation and reintegration is challenging but it is such an important part of a good counter-terrorism approach - nowadays there is a real risk we lose a lot of the civil society work that helps people turn their lives around or helps to prevent people going in a dark direction; that’s really concerning.
How do you think future generations of scholars and activists can build on the work you’re doing? What advice do you have for those entering this field?
Well, the field of terrorism studies has gone from strength to strength and there is no shortage of excellent work that future scholars and activists can build upon, and I’d be honoured if anyone also finds my work useful.
