The Trump administration’s effort to craft a new White House strategy to defeat the self-styled Islamic State extremist group has revived key questions, such as why young people join such organizations and how to reduce violent extremism or even prevent it in the first place. A recent analysis of studies conducted over the past 18 years reveals significant gaps in research that undermine the ability to curb this pervasive threat. 

An Iraq soldier in a damaged building in Mosul in February, 2017. The overall push to free Mosul, once Iraq’s second-largest city, began in October, with local troops pushing from the east into the city’s geographically larger but more sparsely populated eastern half. In late January, they reached the banks of the Tigris River, which bisects Mosul, and declared the city’s eastern section liberated. (Ben C. Solomon/The New York Times)
An Iraq soldier in a damaged building in Mosul in February 2017. The overall push to free Mosul, once Iraq’s second-largest city, from control by ISIS began in October. Photo Courtesy of The New York Times/ Ben C. Solomon

In Afghanistan, for example, extensive research on groups such as the Taliban or al-Qaeda has often overlooked the role of religious identity or the effect of formal or informal justice systems. Similarly, research on Bangladesh more often has focused on economic development and resource management, neglecting critical trends such as increasing religious fundamentalism and indiscriminate violence.

The findings emerged from a computer analysis of more than 3,100 English-language journal articles from relevant academic fields spanning the past 18 years. The study by the RESOLVE Network, a global consortium of researchers and organizations examining violent extremism, took a comprehensive look at what exactly we have been studying, what we have missed, and how scholarly blind spots impact the ability to implement effective policies and programs.

The analysis revealed an often singular focus on specific locations, conflicts and trends in violent extremism since the 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Research often followed the outbreak of violent conflict—in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, for example—rather than focusing on places where it might still be prevented. So conflict-prone and fragile areas in North Africa and the Sahel—Algeria or Mali, for example—and parts of South Asia and Southeast Asia, received little sustained attention.

While there may be similarities between groups like ISIS in Iraq and Boko Haram in Nigeria, each relies on highly localized narratives of conflict that are likely to resonate with some potential recruits more than others. Crucial topics such as the effect of detention practices or prison management on radicalization, or how nonviolent strategies for preventing extremist violence are rarely examined in any great detail, according to the analysis.

The gaps in research on key regions impacted by extremism means policymakers and practitioners lack the evidence they need to develop the most effective programs to counter violent extremism. So as the United States begins again to recraft its strategy to defeat groups like ISIS, getting the research right is a critical next step.

Related Publications

South Sudan’s Pitfalls of Power Sharing

South Sudan’s Pitfalls of Power Sharing

Friday, February 16, 2018

By: USIP Staff; Susan Stigant; Aly Verjee

This week, a new proposal for a power sharing government was tabled at the ongoing Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) High Level Revitalization Forum (HLRF) peace talks for South Sudan. An earlier, 2015 peace deal also contained a formula for power sharing; that arrangement failed and the civil war re-ignited a year later. Power sharing arrangements are appropriate if certain conditions are met, but not enough has been done to ensure the latest proposal will overcome the obstacles present in South Sudan, according to Susan Stigant, USIP’s director for Africa programs and Aly Verjee, a visiting expert at USIP and a former senior advisor to the IGAD mediation, who comment on the proposal and suggest how it could be improved.

Democracy & Governance; Fragility and Resilience; Global Policy

To Stabilize Iraq After ISIS, Help Iraqis Reconcile

To Stabilize Iraq After ISIS, Help Iraqis Reconcile

Sunday, February 11, 2018

By: USIP Staff; Nancy Lindborg; Sarhang Hamasaeed

An international conference opens in Kuwait Monday to plan ways to rebuild Iraq and secure it against renewed extremist violence following the three-year war against ISIS. A USIP team just spent nine days in Iraq for talks with government and civil society leaders, part of the Institute’s years-long effort to help the country stabilize. The Kuwait conference will gather government, business and civil society leaders to consider a reconstruction that Iraq has said could cost $100 billion. USIP’s president, Nancy Lindborg, and Middle East program director, Sarhang Hamasaeed, say any realistic rebuilding plan must focus also on the divisions and grievances in Iraq that led to ISIS’ violence and that still exist.

Conflict Analysis & Prevention; Violent Extremism

Kurdistan and Baghdad: A Tangled Web Over Oil and Budgets

Kurdistan and Baghdad: A Tangled Web Over Oil and Budgets

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

By: Andrew Snow

The economy of Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdistan Region is on the brink of collapse; only the central government in Baghdad can stop an economic free fall that’s already damaging the broader Iraqi economy. While a rapid, negotiated solution to this crisis is essential to stabilize and unify Iraq—and reassure investors needed for post-ISIS reconstruction—a host of complex issues over oil and the national budget stand in the way.

Economics & Environment

View All Publications