Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales OpenEdition Nos plateformes OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypothèses Calenda Bibliothèques OpenEdition Freemium Suivez-nous

Epitomizing ‘Trust’ in Violent Extremism Research

Fathima Azmiya BADURDEEN. “Epitomizing ‘Trust’ in Violent Extremism Research.” Mambo ! vol. XXII (1), 2025.

Building trust is essential when conducting fieldwork on sensitive topics such as violent extremism. This article examines what is at stake in trust-building processes, as shared values and ethical conduct are at play during fieldwork especially when seeking to co-create knowledge on violent extremism.This article draws on reflections carried out at the workshop “Trust-Building, Gendered Nuances, and Decoloniality in Researching Violent Extremism,” organised at the Department of Social Sciences at the Technical University of Mombasa, Kenya, on 15–16 November 2022. The workshop discussed the various circumstances, decisions, and what-if scenarios that the researchers and the “researched” face when living and working in areas deemed “vulnerable” to the phenomenon under study—violent extremism. The workshop’s participants deliberated on the practices informing trust-building, which was regarded as crucial in shaping both ethical research protocols and co-constructing knowledge. The positionalities of both the researcher and the researched, their framing of ethical concerns, whether inappropriate or pertinent and trust-building endeavours, whether artificial or sincere, were considered key during fieldwork. The article also presents a few artworks made by the workshop’s participants to illustrate how they view research fieldwork, illustrating the need for trust-building in co-creating knowledge, specifically when dealing with politically sensitive subjects such as violent extremism.

Introduction

Studying violent extremism as Islamist extremism and Islamist terrorism has influenced terrorism studies since 9/11 (Rabasa et al. 2004; Edwards and Gomis 2011; Smith and Zeigler 2017). In the East African region, Kenya has a longstanding history of programmes for preventing and countering violent extremism (PCVE), which have been successful, encountered challenges, and improved over time (Badurdeen 2023). Research on these PCVE programmes is pivotal in building empirical knowledge to enhance policy, programming, and practices. Academics have built a relatively rich knowledge base on different forms of political violence, terrorism, and more recently, violent extremism in Kenya. Most studies about the Islamist-oriented framing of violent extremism in Kenya focused on the Kenyan coast due to the origins of extremist local networks (Mwakimako 2018; Badurdeen 2018a; Nyagah, Mwangi and Attree 2019). This does not mean extremist networks do not exist in other parts of the country. However, the coast with the historical landscapes of structured and perceived marginalisation constituted grievances that were exploited by extremist entrepreneurs paving the way for extremist movements (Badurdeen 2023; Badurdeen 2021; Breidlid 2021; Botha 2014). Despite the rich knowledge emanating from research on violent extremism, very few studies (Ajil 2023; Badurdeen 2018b) have ventured into the experiential journey of building trust between the researcher and the subjects of research, here called “the researched.” The need to co-create knowledge with the researched is widely advocated in participatory research (Horst and Erdal 2018). Knowledge co-creation as a collaborative inquiry process focuses on researching “with” rather than “on” people. This collaborative knowledge generation by academics working alongside other stakeholders has the potential for “moving beyond the ivory towers” to deliver significant societal impact via dynamic, locally adaptive community‐academic partnerships (Greenhalgh 2016, 392). Identifying ways to foster trust while adhering to ethical conduct and values of safeguarding human dignity is critical to meeting integrity standards in research endeavours in the knowledge co-creation process, especially when studying amplified topics such as violence in Africa (Apard and Maingraud-Martinaud 2021).

In the study of politically laden topics such as terrorism and violent extremism, the epistemology of co-creating knowledge is often top-down, elite-centric, and politically instigated (Breakfast, Kwitshi and Johnson 2022; Ditrych 2013; Jackson 2007; Chouliaraki 2007; Bhatia 2005). Therefore, knowledge construction of terms such as violent extremism is rarely apolitical and leads to distrust and mistrust of the knowledge producers, especially by communities that are affected by the phenomenon studied. These stigmatised communities are often suspicious of researchers, as they believe the researcher is driven by ulterior motives of external institutions or agendas; or subscribes to different worldviews compared to the researched participants (See: Chukwuma 2024; Banyanga 2021; Badurdeen 2018). This underscores the importance of trust-building with communities in highly stressed environments that may be sceptical of the researcher or the topic studied—such as violent extremism. Hence understanding trust, and its interconnectedness with values and ethics in fieldwork influences the researcher-researched relationship to co-create knowledge (Kreiling and Paunov 2021; Langley, Wolstenholme and Cooke 2018).

Very little knowledge is built in this context of how to build rapport or trust-building with interlocutors to co-construct knowledge on violent extremism. Such co-construction of knowledge strengthens the locals in turn to conceptualise violent extremism and is vital in exploring avenues for preventing violent extremism (Badurdeen, Aroussi and Jakala 2022) and peacebuilding (Mignolo 2009; Jabri 2016; Nupia and Espinosa 2023). In this respect, the locals become advocates for co-producing knowledge, recognising the experiential knowledge of local communities in understanding and solving violence in their environments (Mac Ginty and Richmond 2013). Accordingly, trust-building is critical to support the co-creation of knowledge, understanding the existence of different local knowledge in communities, and the battles over epistemic authority unleashed by external agents (Danielsson 2020). This article explores this void of trust-building of the researcher-researched dynamics in violent extremism research among stigmatised and hard-to-reach communities.

This article is based on reflections drawn from the research workshop, “Trust-Building, Gendered Nuances, and Decoloniality in Researching Violent Extremism,” organised by the author. This workshop is part of a larger collaborative project: “Values, Ethics and Trust in Peacebuilding Network,” led in collaboration with Coventry University (UK) and Osaka Jogaukin University (Japan), funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) Networking Grant of the United Nations Year of Trust and Peace. The project comprised a series of five workshops in the United Kingdom (UK), Kenya, and the Philippines. Workshops were understood as instruments to generate knowledge and foster engagement through collaborative discussions between the participants and the facilitators. This engagement was deemed key in establishing the credibility of qualitative research findings. The author was a co-investigator of the overall project and lead facilitator of the Kenyan workshop, which took place on 15 and 16 November 2022, at the Technical University of Mombasa. The author analyses the views and collective reflections of the workshop.

The Workshop

The objective of the Mombasa workshop was to stimulate discussions on building trust in the research processes involved in studying violent extremism amongst stigmatised communities in the Kenyan coastal region. Stigmatised communities in this article refer to those individuals and communities who go through various stigmas as a result of counterterrorism and countering violent extremism interventions targeting them due to being classified as “high risk” or “at risk” to violent extremism. Trust-building was explored in its different facets, relating to security issues, epistemological issues, the politics of setting research agendas, and methodology. The workshop activities were focused on the relationship between the researcher and the researched to reflect on strengthening trust-building processes and practices to enable knowledge co-construction during fieldwork. During the workshop, different art-based methods were used to stimulate discussions. Art-based methods are viewed as a platform enabling participants to open up to discuss sensitive and emotional topics such as violence (See: Rugo 2024; Bleiker 2009; Bolt 2004). The author as organiser of the workshop, relied on previous experiences and reflections on the use of art to stimulate discussions on experiencing violent extremism and its impacts (See: Aroussi, Badurdeen and Jakala 2022).

The workshop comprised researchers working on the topic of violent extremism, and participants who had been interlocutors of researchers in their studies. The workshop enabled both the researchers and the researched to reflect on the research process and how research experiences are impacted by positionalities and the high risks prompted by violent extremism. A purposive sampling strategy was utilised to select participants for the workshop that aligned with the ontological and epistemological perspectives (Punch 2004) of the workshop, which aimed to explore different perspectives from specific categories of individuals (Kelly 2010; Robinson 2014; Palinkas et al. 2015; Orngreen and Levinsen 2017) on values, trust, and ethics in research. The main objective of the workshop was to understand the researcher-researched relationship in building trust in fieldwork when co-creating knowledge. Some of the research questions that shaped the research include: how does the researcher’s positionality play out in the field in building trust when studying topics like violent extremism? How do we understand asymmetric relationships in research when studying violent extremism? What strategies do researchers use in reducing the asymmetric relationships in research work? How do the “researched” participants navigate their positions in the research process? What motivates participants to take part in the research where definitions impact their lives and the environments in which they live? How important is trust-building in carrying out research on violent extremism when conducted in difficult stigmatised environments?  

The aspect of gender and decoloniality was captured in the discussion about the researchers’ positionalities concerning their origins, race, education, and gendered social interactions in fieldwork. For example, how were female researchers viewed during fieldwork when studying violent extremism? Does gender intersect with other identities such as race and religion, when trying to study topics such as violent extremism? Decolonising the term “violent extremism” goes beyond the scope of this research. The workshop revealed complex nuances surrounding processes of trust-building between the researched and the researchers based on lived experiences with the multifaceted phenomenon of violent extremism.

Twenty-five participants were invited to the workshop. They included researchers working on the topic of violent extremism and “researched subjects,” who were respondents or participants in research studies conducted on the topic of violent extremism. Criteria for inclusion of researchers were based on their capacity in outreach work at the community, local, and international levels. Eight researchers—two male and six female, comprising five seasoned and three early career researchers—eventually participated in the workshop. Seventeen participants—ten male and seven female—were selected as a result of their experiences in “being researched” within the scope of violent extremism, mainly Islamist violent extremism. The participants included reformed extremist members, family members of violent extremist members, or those deemed to be at risk of radicalisation or categorised as suspects in violent extremism.

The methodology used in the workshop included collaborative group discussions between participants and the facilitator, as well as individual reflections (Lain 2017; Pandey and Patnaik, 2003) mostly spurred by art-based methods. Participants found the use of art as a relaxing, therapeutic method of exploring loaded topics such as violent extremism. The workshop provided a space for participants to test their painting abilities, which was mostly welcome as most participants stated that they had never had the opportunity to paint since leaving school. Some participants reflected on their artwork trying to make sense of their drawings which depicted the lived experiences of being “researched” in the framework of studies on violent extremism.

The following are some pictorial art depictions made at the workshop that illustrate the reflexive endeavours.

Trust-building is crucial in reaching hard-to-reach participants in research

One group worked on pictorial depictions of different positionalities and related experiences as researchers and the researched during fieldwork. The discussions focused on the importance of trust-building in reaching participants in studies focused on violent extremism. Based on their experiences, the group classified researchers on violent extremism as “international, local, and international/ local”—the last term referring to researchers who are foreigners but have stayed in the country or region for a very long time. The group explained that according to this classification, the researcher’s values and perspectives varied as did their understanding of violent extremism. Local communities had a broad array of acts and actors defined as violent extremism. This includes local criminal gangs and their actions, political extremist groups and their activities during electioneering periods, as well as state negligence or marginalisation. However, external definitions of violent extremism often were framed along Islamist extremism following the Global War on Terror (GWOT) discourses.

The group also described how the subjects of research were often classified as religious leaders, youth leaders, community leaders, political leaders, and local influencers. The first level (the core) included the target group, individuals involved in extremism. The second level included their friends and family members. The third level included the local community in which the target group lived. The fourth level included the leaders and local-level influencers. The fifth level included the local level gatekeepers to the community. They explained that often, researchers studying violent extremism in the field concentrated on the fifth level (i.e. the local level, gatekeepers to the community) rather than going beyond, to focus on those who were actually involved in violent extremism. They explained this as the inability of researchers to build trust with the community and reach these individuals. A key aspect that was highlighted was time. As researchers rushed to complete their studies, they often had insufficient time in the field to build the trust needed to reach those affected or involved. A member also explained the difficulty in reaching these individuals due to personal security concerns.

Understanding the researcher’s positionality before the start of the research is critical for navigating complex situations or questions during fieldwork. Similarly, understanding the positionality of the researched is essential for tailoring questions and interviews to different sociological profiles. When the viewpoints of researcher and the researched are too distant, and the research participants remain suspicious, the trust-building exercise becomes more complicated. Based on how much research participants feel they can trust the researcher, they weigh their options when disclosing their lives and experiences. Identity markers that matter in this context are religion, ethnicity, gender, age, and race. These can position the researcher as more or less trustworthy in the eyes of the participants.

The Researcher and the Researched, Workshop participant output, 15-16 November 2022.

Positionalities and emotional vulnerabilities of the research subjects

A participant explained that their group had reflected on how important social and regional identities are in shaping the positionalities of the researched. This participant drew a tree with different branches to illustrate how positionalities were informed by social markers such as gender, age, regional identities, and religion, and also to show which markers directly or indirectly affect one’s experience with violent extremism. it was concluded that positionalities do influence one’s values and perspectives, as well as how one views and understands violent extremism. This group explained that emotions rise when those directly involved in violent extremism are subjects of research; they pleaded for psychosocial interventions such as counselling to support research participants, and also noted that many PCVE researchers need more competence to deal with issues such as trauma.

A participant explaining the positionalities of the researched participants during the workshop.
Author, 16 November 2022.

Researchers as “different Islands” informing the knowledge-building process

A scholar endeavoured to illustrate “the researchers” when studying violent extremism in Kenya. Researchers were depicted as “different islands” in many different colours. The scholar explained that these islands represented different researchers from different institutions and cultures. Their socio-cultural backgrounds play a crucial role in problematising the topic of violent extremism when studying it—depicted in black in the middle of the drawing. Together, they bring in different lenses to study violent extremism, which is commendable for exploring the topic concerned, but at the same time, the value-ladenness creates specific socio-cultural biases. Each researcher carries their values, biases, knowledge, institutional and funder’s agendas, which influence their research perspective and work. Lack of scrutiny of individual or institutional positionalities may result in overlooking the real concerns of the researched. This appeared as a key ethical concern that needs to be discussed if the research objective is to give priority to the views and perspectives of the researched. 

Researcher as different Islands in studying Violent Extremism – Workshop participant output, 15-16 November 2022.

Violent extremism research is depicted as the “moon” in the process of co-creating knowledge

A participant, directly affected by violent extremism, explained that research on violent extremism can be represented as a moon in co-creating knowledge on violent extremism. According to the participant, the experience of being the subject of such research can be either a “full moon, half moon, or no moon and complete darkness.” The participant thus evoked issues of ethical conduct in research. Research can be useful if the community benefits from it, especially when the researcher is sensitive to local cultures and existing beliefs in the community. This he considered a “full moon” where there is clarity on defining violent extremism with the communities involved to design effective interventions for mitigation. Some PCVE studies are like “half-moons,” where some components on violent extremism are studied, while the other aspects are not studied or remain unknown. PCVE research can be considered “total darkness” when, after the research, research participants suffer the consequences of their precarious situation. They can become individuals at-risk as a result of the research data getting into the hands of law enforcement. In specific localities, the research has led some communities, families, and individuals to be placed under scrutiny. Thorough consideration shall guide the researcher to strengthen ethical conduct to avoid jeopardising the participant’s life.

Violent extremism research depicted as the ‘moon’ – Workshop Participant output, 15-16 November 2022.

A little bit of SALT in Violent Extremism Research

A participant explained the need for “SALT” in research on violent extremism. This was formulated as a fieldwork guide. When researchers conduct fieldwork, they need to be sensitive to the context. In life, salt is used to mix flavours and make food tastier. However, if you add too much salt, the food will not be very good. The letter “S” stands for a smile. If researchers want to do good research, then they should smile when meeting their interlocutors. They shall win them over with a smile. Then researchers need to accept community members for who they are (this is the “A”which stands for “accept us”). The researcher shall not be a “know-it-all type,” but be willing to “listen and learn” from the community. This is the “L” in SALT. After learning from the community, researchers need to think of ways to give back to the community. This is a way to thank the community. This is the “T” of the research. The SALT formula exhorts researchers to take precautions during the fieldwork.

SALT in fieldwork as expressed by a participant. Workshop participant output, 15-16 November 2022.

The Nexus of Trust, Values, and Ethics in Research

What is trust, and why is it important in research on violent extremism? How do researchers build trust among difficult-to-reach individuals or communities? How do researchers balance between national security concerns and their own safety? How ethical are they in building trust with research participants? The researchers need to understand how “mistrust” and “distrust” are produced, thus impeding knowledge-building. Trust can be described as the willingness to be vulnerable; trust between the researcher and the researched is based on the expectation that the other’s word, promise, or verbal or written statement can be relied upon (Guilleimin et al. 2016; Tiidenberg 2018). In this case, the researched participants assume the risk of being vulnerable in anticipation of a positive expectation vis-à-vis the intentions and actions of the researcher to safeguard their views and identity. This positive expectation is a necessary condition for the development of trust (Fulmer and Gelfand 2012).

Once trust is established, the researcher embarks on an exploration of the lives of those being studied. Often the researcher stumbles into a slew of hidden facets of the participants or their associates. Ethical conduct purporting to protect the participant might clash with national or civic values compelling the researcher to report sensitive national security issues. Moral concerns toward protecting the greater common good—i.e. national security—by preventing extremist acts are regarded by the state authorities as more important than ethical concerns to protect the research participants. As a result, violent extremists or violent actions that challenge the government’s authority are defined as “wrong” or “bad” and become standards for reporting or defining violent extremism to protect the common good, the “national security.” If we take the example of a mother protecting her son from the police; the son may be directly or indirectly linked to the extremist network; the mother may believe that her son is linked to a juvenile gang rather than an extremist group; the researcher stumbles on the mother’s dilemma wondering what the probability is of her son being in an extremist network. The researcher while safeguarding the information of the participant is also in a dilemma wondering whether or not to report the facts to the authorities. The values and ethics of the researcher informing the decision on whether or not to report are greatly tied to his or her relationship of trust with the research participant and the government authorities. The researcher will have to strike a balance between their loyalty to government and the friendship developed with research participants.

Trust-building in Violent Extremism Research

Trust-building is vital in topics like violent extremism where rarely apolitical opinions exist between the researcher and the researched. Therefore, co-creating knowledge about subjects such as violent extremism that are politically laden requires engaging in ethnographic encounters that involve pertinent discussions, reflections, and analysis with those affected by the phenomenon in their day-to-day lives (Badurdeen, Aroussi and Jakala 2022).  If one takes the definition of the term “terrorism,” the specific concerns related to violent extremism will depend on who defines the term, and why. Definitional endeavours are politically charged. The researcher is often in the position of representing donors, governments, or other institutional expectations; and community perceptions only play a minor role in the definition equation. For example, research projects are designed externally (outside the researched communities), often with the worldview on violent extremism equating to Islamist extremism. Hence, the researcher’s perceptions become tuned to dominant interpretations of Islamist extremism rather than local realities, where extremism can also be defined as political violence or state-led violence (ibid.). Value-laden biases cloud discussions on violent extremism, particularly when questions are designed to interrogate Islamist extremism rather than an open approach to understanding local perceptions of violent extremism.

In stigmatised communities in the coastal regions of Kenya, fatigued by research on Islamist extremism (Badurdeen 2018), their perceptions of the researcher as the “other” from outside the community make the trust-building exercise difficult, meaning that the researcher will have to put more time and energy into building trust, and this can take months or even years. Most researchers in the Mombasa workshop acknowledged that trust could not be built without encountering obstacles of distrust along the way. Every researcher who attended the workshop described how they attempted to reduce the condition of distrust. Many shared their experiences of similar previous studies. Learning experiences in fieldwork at the intersection of ethics, values, and trust influence the knowledge-building exercise to navigate the politics of violent extremism.

Inappropriately framed ethical conducts impede trust-building. At the same time, complying with rigorous ethical standards can complicate researcher-researched relationships. Ethical conduct in research endeavours might signify addressing the security and safety concerns of the researcher and the researched. Due to the sensitive nature of the study and the need for prolonged relationship-building, researchers may meet participants more than once, sometimes three to four times, to document life stories, carry out interviews, or ethnographic endeavours. Sometimes, such meetings entail violating institutional ethical protocols and succumbing to specific material concerns of the participant, such as purchasing food or paying hospital bills for the participant’s family members in impoverished environments. In such cases, researchers must balance the strict ethics of “money for information given” with “human values of assisting the participant as a human being,” thereby strengthening the trust-building process (See: Mapatano 2019).

During the Mombasa workshop, “exploitation” and “artificial trust-building” were mentioned by research participants as key tenets in creating mistrust. A few participants explained that they felt as if they were being interrogated rather than studied. Some others viewed research as being exploitative during fieldwork under the guise of data collection. Well-framed ethics may be actually misapplied under the guise of doing good or as an obligation to “catch the bad or misguided guys” in the frame of national security. This might be tied to the researcher’s frequently biased assumptions that any form of Islam radicalisation or extremism equates to violent extremists or terrorism. Participants emphasised researchers’ “artificial trust-building” efforts as the sole intention of gathering data with sinister motives such as providing data to law enforcement to harass the already stigmatised communities. Participants also explained how they navigated these exploitative dangers. Feeling exploited by researchers, participants become distrustful and close up, withholding sharing their experiences, keeping quiet or skipping questions, or even crying or erupting in anger to disrupt the flow of questions during interviews.

Trust-building was emphasised as a competence-intensive process, especially when studying difficult topics such as violent extremism or any ideology-driven conflicts. Prior experience in conducting sensitive research studies puts researchers in a better position where their skills are useful in the field. Novice researchers frequently struggle with fieldwork while attempting to build trust. The key is to take time and delve into the context before embarking on the research. The researcher’s social and emotional skills in interactions, which are bolstered by cultural literacy and empathic behaviours, help to cement trust. However, it needs to be acknowledged that the process of building trust is complicated, complex, non-linear, and non-straightforward, with more of a wavelike development of ups and downs; therefore, novel methodological approaches are needed in studying trust in violent extremism research.

Particularly in sensitive fieldwork, trust-building processes between the researcher and the research remain critical in validating findings. Yet, while being fundamental, this process is often unacknowledged in methodological approaches. When the researcher and the research participant tread on terrains of suspicion, risk, and vulnerability, the research outcomes might be considered less plausible. The process of trust-building strengthens the plausibility of the research outcomes. The workshop concluded that researchers need to be supported and facilitated by universities and research institutions to probe into the depths of knowledge-building experiences they had in the field. This support is important for both researchers who self-identify with the lived experiences of those they are researching and the researchers whose lived experiences may differ from those of the localities they venture into.

Conclusion

This article looked at significant challenges around building trust when researching sensitive topics such as violent extremism. Despite adherence to good ethical practices in social science studies, such as using written or verbal consent forms, sharing outputs during research dissemination with the research communities, and spending prolonged periods building trust with participants, the politically laden nature surrounding the term violent extremism and the embedded values in different communities can sometimes result in mistrust between the researcher and the researched. In sticking to values safeguarding human dignity in research, it is important to recognise the prospective power of the unspoken values—values that rarely get written down when conducting research such as honour, morality, and respect among others, but are learned through observation and non-verbal cues such as smiles, tears, anger, the silence in between the dialogues.  Adhering to these unspoken values enables accurate scrutiny of people’s perceptions, embodied in their emotional experiences, individual and collective traumas, and apathy on the phenomenon under study—violent extremism. Building this type of contextual understanding is important in environments labelled as susceptible to violent extremism or known as suspect communities, where suspicion, perceptions, construction of the “other,” perceived marginalisation, misinformation, and rumours are embedded in the formation and construction of the phenomenon under study. Fieldwork in such environments becomes a political exercise and a risky one, especially where the researcher and the researched, privy to different information based on their world views, construe narratives on defining violent extremism either as challenging or strengthening the existing status quo of the political elites. In such environments, the power of dominant knowledge constructs shall critically be taken into account and ultimately seek to understand the phenomenon under study based on the local context rather than using externally driven terms on the phenomenon.

Acknowledgments

This research workshop was possible through a generous UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) Arts and Humanities Research Council grant (Award Reference: AH/W009765/1) for the project: Values, Ethics and Trust in Peacebuilding Network. The workshop is part of a series of art workshops in collaboration with Michaelina Jakala and Miho Taka, Coventry University; Kyoko Okumoto, Osaka Jogakuin University; and Fathima Azmiya Badurdeen, Technical University of Mombasa.

References

Ajil, Ahmed. 2023. “Studying Terror Through My I’s: Autoethnographic Insider/Outsider Reflections of an Arab-Muslim Researcher. Perspectives on Terrorism 17(2):74–91. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27255593

Apard, Élodie, and Cyrielle Maingraud-Martinaud. 2021. “Studying Violence in Africa: Contributions from Sources, Fieldwork Challenges and Ethical Considerations.” Sources: Materials & Fieldwork in African Studies 2: 25–42. https://doi.org/10.4000/11taf

Aroussi Sahla, Fathima A. Badurdeen, Xavier Verhoest, and Michaelina Jakala. 2023. “Seeing bodies in social sciences research: Body mapping and violent extremism in Kenya.” Qualitative Research 23(5): 1261–1282. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941221096598

Badurdeen, Fathima Azmiya. 2021. “How do individuals join the Al-Shabaab? An ethnographic insight into recruitment models for the Al-Shabaab Network in Kenya.” African Security 14(3):  239–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/19392206.2021.1963926

Badurdeen, Fathima Azmiya. 2023. “International and local NGOs addressing violent and hateful extremism in Kenya.” Conflict, Security & Development 23(5): 465–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/14678802.2023.2211034

Badurdeen, Fathima Azmiya. 2018a. “Surveillance of Muslim Youth in the name of Counter Terrorism.” In Governing Youth Politics in the Age of Surveillance, edited by Mario Grasso and Judith Bessant, 85–112.London: Routledge.

Badurdeen, Fathima Azmiya. 2018b. “Insider-outsider reflections on terrorism research in the coastal region of Kenya.” In Experiences in Researching Conflict and Violence, edited by Althea-Maria Rivas and Brendan Ciarán Browne, 119–134. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.51952/9781447337706.ch008

Badurdeen, Fathima Azmiya, Sahla Aroussi, and Michaelina Jakala. 2023. “Anti-feminism, Gender and the Far-right Gap in C/PVE Measures.” In Gender and the Governance of Terrorism and Violent Extremism , edited by Ann-Kathrin Rothermel and Laura J. Shepherd, 159–180. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003381266 

Banyanga, Eric Batumike. 2021. “How to navigate research in conflict zones.” Africa at LSE , October 1st, 2021. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2021/10/01/how-to-navigate-research-conflict-zone-knowledge-ethics-drc/

Bhatia, Michael V. 2005. “Fighting words: naming terrorists, bandits, rebels and other violent actors.” Third World Quarterly 26(1): 5–22. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3993760

Bleiker, Roland. 2009. Aesthetics and World Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bolt, Barbara. 2004. Art Beyond Representation: The Performative Power of the Image. London: IB Tauris.

Botha, Anneli. 2014. “Political socialization and terrorist radicalization among individuals who joined al-Shabaab in Kenya.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 37(11): 895–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2014.952511

Breakfast, Ntsikelelo, Aviwe Kwitshi, and Pamela Johnson. 2022. “The Ideological Construct of Terrorism: A Foucauldian Perspective of Power and Discourse.” Journal of African Foreign Affairs 9 (2):141–58. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/ejc-aa_jafa_v9_n2_a9

Breidlid, Torhild. 2021. “Countering or contributing to radicalisation and violent extremism in Kenya? A critical case study.” Critical Studies on terrorism 14(2), 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/17539153.2021.1902613

Chouliaraki, Lilie, ed. 2007. The Soft Power of War. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publications.

Chukwuma, Kodili. 2024. “The critical terrorism researcher: identity, positionality, and (de) coloniality.” Critical Studies on Terrorism, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/17539153.2024.2370546

Danielsson, Anna. 2020. “Reconceptualising the politics of knowledge authority in post/conflict interventions: From a peacebuilding field to transnational fields of interventionary objects.” European Journal of International Security 5 (1): 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2019.22

Ditrych, Ondrej. 2013. “From discourse to dispositif: States and terrorism between Marseille and 9/11.” Security Dialogue 44(3): 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010613484076

Edwards, Jay and Benoît Gomis. 2011. “Islamic Terrorism in the UK since 9/11: Reassessing the ‘Soft’ Response.” International Security Programme Paper – ISP. https://opendata.uni-halle.de/bitstream/1981185920/108421/45/664208703.pdf

Fulmer, C. Ashley, and Michele J. Gelfand. 2012. “At What Level (and in Whom) We Trust: Trust Across Multiple Organizational Levels.” Journal of Management 38(4): 1167–1230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312439327

Greenhalgh, Trisha, Claire Jackson, Sara Shaw, and Tina Janamian. 2016. “Achieving Research Impact Through Co-creation in Community-Based Health Services: Literature Review and Case Study.” The Milbank Quarterly 94(2): 392–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12197

Guillemin, Marilys, Lynn Gillam, Emma Barnard, Paul Stewart, Hannah Walker, and Doreen Rosenthal. 2016. “‘Doing Trust’: How Researchers Conceptualize and Enact Trust in Their Research Practice.” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 11(1): 370–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264616668975

Horst, Cindy, and Marta Bivand Erdal. 2018. “Co-Creating Knowledge: Creative collaborations between researchers, artists, policymakers and practitioners.” PRIO Policy Brief, 10. Oslo: PRIO. https://www.prio.org/publications/11129

Jabri, Vivienne. 2016. “Post-Colonialism: A Post-Colonial Perspective on Peacebuilding.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Disciplinary and Regional Approaches to Peace, edited by O.P. Richmond, S. Pogodda, and J. Ramović, 154–167. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-40761-0_12

Jackson, Richard. 2007. “Constructing Enemies: ‘Islamic Terrorism’ in Political and Academic Discourse.” Government and Opposition 42(3): 394–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2007.00229.x

Kreiling, Laura, and Caroline Paunov. 2021. “Knowledge co-creation in the 21st century: A cross-country experience-based policy report.” OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers 115. https://doi.org/10.1787/23074957

Lain, Sheryl. 2017. “Show, Don’t Tell: Reading Workshop Fosters Engagement and Success.” Texas Journal of Literacy Education 5(2): 160–167. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1162672.pdf

Langley, Joe, Daniel Wolstenholme, and Jo Cooke. 2018. “‘Collective making’ as knowledge mobilisation: the contribution of participatory design in the co-creation of knowledge in healthcare.” BMC Health Service Research 18: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3397-y

Mapatano, Jérémie. 2019. “When you become Pombe Yangu (My Beer): Dealing with the financial expectations of research participants.” Governance in conflict network. https://www. gicnetwork. be/when-you-becomepombe-yangu-my-beer-dealing-with-the-financial-expectations-of-research-participants (2019).

Mac Ginty, Roger, and Oliver P. Richmond. 2013. “The Local Turn in Peace Building: A Critical Agenda for Peace.” Third World Quarterly 34 (5): 763–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2013.800750

Mignolo, Walter. D. 2009. “Epistemic Disobedience, Independent Thought, and Decolonial Freedom.” Theory, Culture & Society 26(7–8): 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409349275

Nupia, Carlos Mauricio, and Laura Valencia Espinosa. 2023. “Understanding Mechanisms of Knowledge Co-Production in Peace Research Projects Supported by International Cooperation.” Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society 6(1): 2236507. https://doi.org/10.1080/25729861.2023.2236507

Ørngreen, Rikke, and Karin Tweddell Levinsen. 2017. “Workshops as a Research Methodology.” Electronic Journal of E-Learning 15(1): 70–81. https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/257686207/_rngreen_Levinsen_Workshop_as_a_Research_methodology_ejel_volume15_issue1_article569.pdf

Palinkas, Lawrence A., Sarah M. Horwitz, Carla A. Green, Jennifer P. Wisdom, Naihua Duan, and Kimberly Hoagwood. 2015. “Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research.” Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 42(5): 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y

Pandey, Satyendra C., and Srilata Patnaik. 2003. “Establishing Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Inquiry: A Critical Examination.” Jharkhand Journal of Development and Management Studies 12(1): 5743–5753. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371731575

Rabasa, Angel M., Cheryl Benard, Peter Chalk, C. Christine Fair, Theodore Karasik, Rollie Lal, Ian Lesser, and David Thaler. 2004. The Muslim World after 9/11. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Rugo, Daniele. 2024. “The patch as method: The arts’ contribution towards understandings of conflict.” International Political Science Review 45(1): 81-93. https://doi.org/10.1177/01925121231177442 

Punch, Keith. 2004. Developing Effective Research Proposals. London: Sage Publications.

Robinson, Oliver C. 2013. “Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: A theoretical and practical guide.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 11(1): 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2013.801543

Smith, Meagan, and Sean M. Zeigler. 2017. “Terrorism before and after 9/11–a more dangerous world?” Research and Politics 4(4): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168017739757

Tiidenberg, Katrin. 2018. “Research Ethics, Vulnerability, and Trust on the Internet.” In Second International Handbook of Internet Research edited by Jeremy Hunsinger, Matthew M. Allen, and Lisbeth Klastrup, 569–583.

 


OpenEdition vous propose de citer ce billet de la manière suivante :
Fathima Azmiya Badurdeen (6 mars 2025). Epitomizing ‘Trust’ in Violent Extremism Research. Mambo ! Consulté le 24 mars 2025 à l’adresse https://doi.org/10.58079/13fl1


Fathima Azmiya Badurdeen

Fathima Azmiya Badurdeen is a Postdoctoral researcher in the Faculty of Religion, Culture and Society of the University of Groningen, Netherlands (2025). She is also a Senior lecturer in the Department of Social Sciences of the Technical University of Mombasa, Kenya, working on issues related to youth, gender and violent extremism.

Vous aimerez aussi...

Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse e-mail ne sera pas publiée. Les champs obligatoires sont indiqués avec *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.