Australian Muslim Leaders’ Perspectives on Countering Violent Extremism: Towards Developing a Best Practice Model for Engaging the Muslim Community
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The events of September 11, 2001, Madrid, 2004, London and Bali in 2005 generated new government responses and approaches to the threat of terrorism by the US and its close allies—the Five-Eyes Partners, including the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Since 2001, the Australian Government has identified the community as a collaborator to defeat terrorism. This is supported by literature in Australia and the UK, which has reiterated the importance of community engagement to governments’ success in countering extremism (Briggs, 2010; Gunaratna, 2011; Klausen, 2009; Pickering, McCulloch, & Wright-Neville, 2008; Spalek & Imtoual, 2007; Spalek & Lambert, 2008). This research explores the Australian Government’s counter-terrorism policies and the countering violent extremism (CVE) strategy that was implemented at state and federal levels. The CVE strategy commenced under the Rudd government in 2009 with the creation of a CVE national framework, which was the first of its kind in Australia. The research employed a mixed method of gathering data. A purposive sample was selected focusing on leaders of peak, state and local organisations and its leaders (or representatives) from Australia’s diverse Muslim community. 32 participants completed an online questionnaire focused on the leaders’ responses to September 11 and their interaction with the government’s CVE strategy and issues such as trust building, media coverage, political rhetoric and foreign policy. In phase two of the research, forty-three leaders were interviewed on the impact of terrorism as measured within their respective Muslim communities; and the efficacy of the government’s community engagement strategies and the CVE programme within their respective communities, and the impact of political and media rhetoric on community trust and contribution to extremism. The strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) method was used to analyse the data. The study reveals that the CVE programmes were criticised by participants for being short-sighted in failing to interact with youth or build on community strengths. Participants further identified the programmes as having poor evaluation processes and accountability. The number of Muslim organisations receiving government funding for CVE is very small, and the percentage of funding allocated to youth projects is limited, which is of vital importance in countering extremist ideologies. Participants highlighted that extremism is being addressed through a range of community-based channels that are not CVE funded. Trust building was considered a critical activity essential for promoting government/ community partnership. Participants stressed that government agencies need to work more closely with the Muslim community to build trust aimed at enhancing partnership. Inaccurate, insensitive and negative media portrayal of Islam and Muslims has had a significant detrimental impact on the Australian Muslim community. The participants felt overwhelmed by this social challenge, particularly in relation to inadequacy of resources and skills, and the contribution to extremism. There has been an increase in mistrust of the government since September 11. Participants viewed government rhetoric as strongly associating Islam with terrorism. Participants felt that public discourse of politicians’ views had directly contributed to youth marginalisation. Participants felt improved communication and understanding of Islam is needed in the public arena, where Muslim community initiatives should be promoted to generate greater social acceptance and ultimately shift public discourse to focus on the politics of countering extremism within all Australian communities and separate this from the Muslim community. Participants felt that addressing foreign policy with greater sensitivity and having more consistent, long-term co-ordination with the entire community, popular youth groups, service providers and families could result in more resilient and effective partnerships towards countering violent extremism.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,047 | 0,033 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,016 | 0,019 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,013 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».