Responses to securitizing higher education to counter radicalization and violent extremism: A comparative study of USA and Norway

This thesis aims to explore the responses of university teachers in the USA and Norway to the attempts to make higher education take responsibility for security-related tasks, specifically prevention of radicalization and violent extremism. The two countries have been exposed to terrorist attacks in the past, leading them to face the need to balance freedom and security. Both have adopted a new way to counter terrorism that is a decentralized, whole-of-society approach with a focus on preventing preliminary processes leading to terrorism, namely radicalization and violent extremism. This decentralized responsibility also counts on the higher education sector to partake in the preventive work, as they are considered well-suited to recognize altering behavior with students. Norway has incorporated specified policies into the education sector. The USA has not come this far despite having been more exposed to terrorist attacks in the past and having a significantly different threat picture. The objective is to research what the differences and similarities are in the perceptions of university teachers and explore why they differ in their views and which challenges and dilemmas may arise from the efforts to involve university teachers in the USA and Norway, respectively. A survey was conducted and gathered data from 74 American university teachers and 110 Norwegian university teachers who meet students through lectures. The study’s theoretical framework was based on insights from the securitization theory and previous research on securitizing education. It is suggested that the perceived prevalence of an issue could amplify the receptiveness of the securitizing process for this issue. This study concludes that university teachers in both countries seem to agree that higher education should play a role in preventing radicalization and violent extremism. However, the minor support for repressive measures suggests that most of the university teachers from the American and Norwegian samples oppose a securitization of education. The preferred level of involvement appears to be influenced by how common the problems are perceived to be in the countries. The two countries seem to share similar views on what advantageous opportunities higher education can contribute to in preventive efforts, such as a knowledge-based approach and being a relevant arena to carry out preventive efforts. They also share similar views on some disadvantages of involving universities, such as losing their neutral position and negatively affecting the rights of students to voice opinions. There seems to be a fear of losing the trust of both students and the outside environment, but this worry seems to be more common among American university teachers. Similar challenges between the countries are linked to making university teachers more familiar with the responsibility and better prepared to carry it out. Furthermore, to not risk losing trust, their involvement should not be perceived as them stepping out of their neutral position, nor be perceived as “thought police” preventing students from exploring and developing themselves. The effort should also not be overwhelming for busy teachers to not be able to follow through. However, differences in the perceived prevalence, trust level in authorities and police, as well as the levels of polarization in the two different societies appear to raise more challenges and dilemmas for the USA than for Norway concerning involving universities in preventive efforts