Journal for Deradicalization (Mar 2024)
Research Note: The role of ideas in radicalization to terrorism: Ideology and narrative vs. diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational action frames
Abstract
The concepts of ideology and narrative have become popular in efforts to understand the role of ideas in radicalization to terrorism. This review finds that definitions of these concepts in terrorism research are inconsistent and seldom linked with measurement, and that references to these concepts can often be interpreted as one or more of the three dimensions of a collective action frame. These three dimensions--diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational framing--are relatively easy to define and measure; poll items tapping the three dimensions can track progress in the war of ideas against terrorism. Munson’s (2008) study of the anti-abortion movement in the U.S. identified four prognostic frames (politics, education, services, direct action) competing within the same anti-abortion diagnostic frame. The same four prognostic frames can be found competing within Islamist and Extreme Right movements. The distinction between diagnostic and prognostic frames leads to the suggestion that P/CVE programs should contest violent prognostic frames rather than contesting the diagnostic frames that support both violent and nonviolent prognostic frames. The review concludes with a residual puzzle: why have ideology and narrative been popular concepts in terrorism research despite their empirical weaknesses, while diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational action frames have been relatively neglected despite their empirical promise?
