Governing the prevention of radicalization and violent extremism at higher educational institutions: A comparison of the official policy documents of Norway and the UK through a wicked problem lens

The increasing attention accorded to radicalization and violent extremism (RVE) has resulted in higher educational institutions finding themselves at the forefront of counterterrorism strategies. In recent years, both Norway and the UK have implemented official policies targeting the prevention of RVE in this sector. However, implementing policies on the prevention of RVE is not problem-free. It is often viewed as a tantamount to a wicked policy problem as there exist high degrees of knowledge gaps, conflicting values and interests, and various stakeholders with differing priorities and tasks. This challenge is also reflected in the two policies. Despite similar aims, their reception varied substantially as the UK policy has been subject to considerable criticism on its potential to endanger educational functions and societal freedoms. This thesis compares and examines the two policies to extract knowledge on their functioning and to explore why they were met with such differing receptions. The policies´ are examined and compared regarding their risk governance strategy and through a theoretical framework building on wicked problems and governance theory. As the effectiveness of prevention concerning its possibilities to reduce RVE is inevitably unknown, the processes and management aspects of the policies illuminate knowledge on their functioning and implications on P/CVE in higher educational institutions. Three key principles for governing wicked problems are thus identified to frame a comparative document analysis. The findings in this research point to similarities and vital differences regarding the risk governance strategies identified within the two countries´ official policy documents. These differences also result in them aligning with insights on governing wicked problems to various degrees. The Norwegian strategy is found to align with research to a high degree, while, the UK policy seems to only reflect research to some degree. Findings also showed that this results in the Norwegian policy offering better pre-requisites for approaching P/CVE at higher educational institutions. The findings also point to the identified differences in the strategies representing a plausible, partial explanation for the criticism targeted towards the UK policy. Consequently, the findings suggest an ought awareness on risk governance strategies as they are not insignificant for how the P/CVE at higher educational institutions unfolds. Simultaneously, more situational research is called for to acquire a broader and a more holistic picture of the policies and their belonging practices