Table 1: Counter-Radicalization Program Case Study Comparison Data Requirement Sakinah Campaign PET Dialogue Forum Quilliam Question Independent Think-tank: Independent NGO with online Biannual In-person conduct events/debates, Structure of engagement program and Meetings with Anonymous write research papers, Program? research division Community Leaders outreach, media appearance and press releases/publications Religious scholars and Anonymous local Former extremists Messengers? leaders community leader Academic Scholars Former extremists participants Religious Scholars Receives Gov. Receives Gov. Support Gov. Administered Gov. Funding Funding Funding (conflicting views) Program or Support? Consults for the Opaque relationship Receives Gov. Funding Gov. Constitutional Type of Absolute Monarchy Governed Constitutional Monarchy, Monarchy, Democracy Gov.? by Islamic Law Democracy Gov. openly acknowledges Level of support and nature of Audience the program but Audience fully aware of relationship with Gov. unclear Aware of participants are anonymous funding and program’s so the audience cannot draw a Support? so the audience cannot ties to the gov. clear connection draw a clear connection Participants view as Publish dialogues successful and valuable Positive Program reported stats: Many participants open Lost credibility and Engagement? prevented 722 men and 155 about participation and support due to gov. Success women only one received and media ties Metrics? Interest from other countries negative response in program structure Leaders continue to participate
Table 1: Counter-Radicalization Program Case Study Comparison Data Requirement Question Sakinah Campaign PET Dialogue Forum Quilliam Structure of Program? Independent NGO with online engagement program and research division Biannual In-person Meetings with Anonymous Community Leaders Independent Think-tank: conduct events/debates, write research papers, outreach, media appearance and press releases/publications Messengers? Religious scholars and leaders Former extremists Anonymous local community leader participants Former extremists Academic Scholars Religious Scholars Gov. Funding or Support? Receives Gov. Support Funding (conflicting views) Opaque relationship Gov. Administered Program Receives Gov. Funding Receives Gov. Funding Consults for the Gov. Type of Gov.? Absolute Monarchy Governed by Islamic Law Constitutional Monarchy, Democracy Constitutional Monarchy, Democracy Audience Aware of Support? Level of support and nature of relationship with Gov. unclear so the audience cannot draw a clear connection Gov. openly acknowledges the program but participants are anonymous so the audience cannot draw a clear connection Audience fully aware of program’s funding and ties to the gov. Positive Engagement? Success Metrics? Publish dialogues Program reported stats: prevented 722 men and 155 women Interest from other countries in program structure Participants view as successful and valuable Many participants open about participation and only one received negative response Leaders continue to participate Lost credibility and support due to gov. and media ties
Hendrickson%20Jennifer%20-%20Global%20Security%20Studies%20Thesis-For%20Publication%20Final.docx