The Prevent Duty in UK higher education: Insights from freedom of information requests
| DOI | 10.1177/1369148120968520 |
| Author | Ben Campbell,Imran Awan,Keith Spiller,Andrew Whiting |
| Published date | 01 August 2021 |
| Date | 01 August 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148120968520
The British Journal of Politics and
International Relations
2021, Vol. 23(3) 513 –532
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1369148120968520
journals.sagepub.com/home/bpi
The Prevent Duty in UK
higher education: Insights
from freedom of information
requests
Andrew Whiting , Ben Campbell,
Keith Spiller and Imran Awan
Abstract
Drawing upon 157 responses to Freedom of Information Requests sent to Higher Education
Institutions across England, Scotland and Wales, this article explores how the Prevent Duty has
been enacted within UK higher education. The article shows how the duty has seen considerable
repositioning and restructuring across the sector, conflated counterterrorism with safeguarding
and introduced further bureaucracy. The article also explores the low number of Channel referrals,
the justifications provided for these and the several instances in which institutions refused to
disclose this information. We argue that these disproportionate developments have brought
harmful depoliticising effects while also enhancing the mechanisms of surveillance and governance.
Furthermore, we argue that our findings demonstrate the value in Freedom of Information
Requests as a means of approach and suggest a continued need for critical researchers to explore
the specific functioning of the duty to complement the broader critiques that are levelled at the
policy as a whole.
Keywords
counter-extremism, counterterrorism, extremism, freedom of information, higher education,
Prevent Duty, Prevent, safeguarding, surveillance, terrorism
Introduction
Prevent is the UK’s counter-extremism strategy and is designed to stop people being
drawn towards, or coming to support, terrorism. Framed as a ‘softer’ element of the coun-
terterrorism strategy, Prevent looks to engage with communities and public bodies to
identify vulnerable people and interpose. In an effort to expand Prevent’s coverage, the
Counter-Terrorism and Security Act (CTSA, 2015) came into law in September 2015 and
with it so too did the Prevent Duty (henceforth ‘the duty’). The duty made it the legal
requirement of a series of public sector ‘specified authorities’ to pay ‘due regard to the
Birmingham City University, Birmingham, UK, Department of Criminology and Sociology, Birmingham City
University, Birmingham, UK
Corresponding author:
Andrew Whiting, Department of Criminology and Sociology, Birmingham City University, Curzon Building, 4
Cardigan Street, Birmingham B4 7BD, UK.
Email: andrew.whiting@bcu.ac.uk
968520BPI0010.1177/1369148120968520The British Journal of Politics and International RelationsWhiting et al.
research-article2020
Original Article
514 The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 23(3)
need to prevent individuals from being drawn into terrorism’ (CTSA, 2015). The duty
broadened the coverage of Prevent to include all the people that work within these speci-
fied authorities as well as those who ‘go through’ them – a group that would cover almost
the entirety of the population in England, Scotland and Wales.1
As an extension of an already controversial and criticised strategy (Awan, 2012;
Elshimi, 2017; Qureshi, 2015; Stevens, 2011; Thomas, 2010) the duty has also been the
recipient of critique and resistance (NUS Connect, 2017; Spiller et al., 2018; UCU, 2015:
4). The duty’s appearance in UK higher education (UKHE) has raised concerns about its
acting as a form of (racialised) surveillance on campus, its potential to curtail academic
freedom and freedom of expression and that it will have a chilling effect on topics both
taught and researched (Barrett, 2018; McGovern, 2016). Coverage of the duty is, of
course, not wholly negative (Greer and Bell, 2018) and given the degree of contestation,
some scholars have identified Prevent as a prime example of an ‘intractable policy con-
troversy’ (Lewis, 2018).
Our article aims to contribute to this discussion and explores the duty within one of
these specified authorities, UKHE. While there exists a robust debate around the duty in
UKHE, there is still a lot that is not known about how it has been enacted as well as a
dearth of research about the impact it is having. In this article we look to address this gap
and speak of these issues, concerns and disagreements by shedding light on how the duty
has been enacted within UKHE, how it is functioning and, finally, to consider the impact
it has had. To achieve this, we have drawn on findings from 157 Freedom of Information
Requests (FOIs) sent to higher education institutions (HEIs) between November 2018
and February 2019.
In our article we aim to make three main contributions. First, we produce an evidence-
informed picture of how the duty has been enacted within UKHE, drawing attention to
structures, training and policy as well as referrals made to Channel. Second, we highlight
the depoliticising effects these developments have had, how they have enhanced the
mechanisms of surveillance and governance and consider the proportionality of the duty.
Finally, we make a methodological contribution around the use of FOIs and argue for the
value of this approach to answer questions around public sector security deputisation.
The article proceeds in four sections. First, we survey the relevant literature to identify
the focus of previous research and provide a wider context within which to situate our
study. Second, we speak about the method, explaining how we used FOIs to generate our
data and why this approach was appropriate to answer our research questions. Third, we
present our findings from the FOI data, organising this across the themes of restructuring
and repositioning, safeguarding/counterterrorism, compliance and bureaucratic conserva-
tism and finally, referrals to Channel. Before concluding, we reflect on the implications
of the duty within UKHE both in terms of its depoliticising effect, the extension of sur-
veillance/governance practice, and its proportionality.
The Prevent Duty within higher education
Compliance with the duty in UKHE is monitored by the Office for Students (OfS) and a
succinct list of what is required from HEIs is included on the OfS website (Office for
Students, 2020):
Assess the risks associated with Prevent and draw up a plan to mitigate these;
Have effective welfare support systems, linking to DfE Prevent coordinators, local
authorities or the police if necessary;
To continue reading
Request your trial