Matthew Wilkinson

In the context of a damaging absence of clarity, we define “Islamist Extremism” as: the absolutely divided and antagonistic Worldview of the “Us”-true-Muslim “in-group” who must strive to live in an “Islamic” State versus “Them”-non-Muslim’ and “wrong”-Muslim “out-groups” who are stripped of their human status due to their opposition to “true Islam.” We illustrate this definition of “Extremism” - including showing how Islamist Extremism is different from Mainstream Islam - using fresh empirical data from the largest ever study of Islam and Muslims in prison. We proceed to show how this definition of “Extremism” can be used as the basis for understanding processes of radicalization and de-radicalization in and outside prison. We then extrapolate from the case of Islamist Extremism in prison to suggest a working definition of “Extremism” more generally as: any absolutely divided “Us” versus “Them” Worldview by which a “chosen” in-group strips “condemned” out-groups of their basic human qualities, properties and rights and thereby sets them up for harm.

Filling a significant gap in prisons research, this paper articulates the experiences and perspectives of a group of Muslim prison officers interviewed as part of an international study examining Islam in prison. These Muslim prison officers occupied a precarious occupational cultural space between Us (prison officers) and Them (Muslim prisoners) which presented both risks of exclusion, religious and racial prejudices and opportunities to build bridges between prisoners and staff and to educate, especially in the dimension of religion. The very presence of Muslim prison officers in prisons challenged traditional occupational cultural stereotypes around both prison officers and Muslims. The disproportionately large numbers of Muslim prisoners in Europe and the haphazard way that Muslim prison officers often encounter the profession, suggest both that better training focused upon Islam in prison for existing prison officers is vital and that more directed recruitment of Muslim prison officers is needed.

ABSTRACT Critical realist thought has theorised convincingly that epistemic relativism is constellationally embedded in ontological realism which in turn necessitates judgemental rationality. In social science, judgemental rationality involves acting upon plausible decisions about competing points of view. However, the tools for doing this are, as yet, under-articulated. This paper addresses this absence by articulating triangulation and depth-reflexivity as two tools for doing judgemental rationality in empirical research. It draws on the experiences of a diverse team working on an international comparative research project on conversion to Islam in prisons. It demonstrates how epistemic and relational gaps between researchers and research subjects can be bridged by mobilising the ‘laminated’ properties and personal attributes of a diverse research team that factors in attributes that are absent as well as those present. The biographical experiences of the team are analyzed in a variety of intersecting dimensions: faith, ethnicity/ethno-culture, gender, class and professionality.

This paper suggests philosophical foundations for mixed methods research based on the philosophy of critical realism. In particular, it suggests that the critical realist idea of the primacy of ontology helps bridge the apparent paradigmatic gap between qualitative and quantitative research. It illustrates this foundational idea by showing why and how a multi-disciplinary team used a mixed methods approach to understand the significance of religion in prison through a multi-site study of religious conversion to Islam in prison and how this gives a better account than a single method approach. The mixed method research design used in the project sets out a new way of mapping and understanding religious conversion and differences within a faith group that draws on the emancipatory potential of critical realist thought.