Change under opposition. : An exploratory study about the role that social services have in preventing radicalization and violent extremism and what views social service workers and managers have regarding their involvement in this work.

The aim of this study was to examine what judicial and profession related obstacles and difficulties that arise due to the role that social services have in preventing radicalization and violent extremism and what views social service workers and managers have regarding their involvement in this work. Specifically, the aim of the paper was to explore the understanding social services professionals have about the phenomenon that is radicalization and violent extremism and how this impacts the service they provide to individuals. Furthermore, the study wanted to investigate what methods and actions are carried out in order to detect and prevent individuals from becoming radicalized. Six separate semi-structured interviews were carried out consisting of four social services workers and two managers. The participants were selected from four different municipalities. After conducting the interviews four main themes regarding radicalization and violent extremism were identified, namely; understanding and reasoning, preventive and active measures, obstacles and difficulties, social services in a changing world. New institutionalism theory was applied to the result in order to improve the understanding of the role social services have regarding this issue. The studies main findings were that social workers and managers view radicalization as a process. This process can be carried out alone or as a member of a group. Radicalized individuals are hard to detect and therefore social services struggle to identify them. Fieldwork officers working together with school personnel have the best chance of detecting radicalization at an early stage. There is no method especially adapted to radicalization and violent extremism being used by the social services. Many participants describe being uncertain as to what their role should be with directives and regulations leaving room for interpretation and misunderstanding.