The 2015 Prevent Strategy policy of the UK Government places a legal duty on a wide range of professionals to assess risk regarding radicalisation and counter terrorism. By doing so, it expands the risk work required of these practitioners into an area seemingly unrelated to their usual professional remit. In this article, I analyse data from in-depth interviews undertaken in Spring 2017 with 15 practitioners working in the fields of family support, social work and healthcare in London, exploring how these participants experienced the risk work required by the Prevent Strategy in the context of their everyday work. In doing so, I employ Habermas’ lifeworld as a sensitising conceptual basis to explore lived experiences along three dimensions; levels of familiarity, areas of consonance and dissonance with other aspects of the practitioner’s role, and impact on identity. The findings were characterised by participants’ awareness of the Prevent Strategy, which was significantly lower than suggested by both government rhetoric and opposition campaign groups. Furthermore, it was narrated as largely consonant with other types of risk work. Tensions did, however, emerge for some participants regarding, for example, the likelihood of encountering radicalisation within their work and the potential negative consequences for society. These tensions were often ‘bracketed off’ in various ways, enabling participants to pragmatically continue undertaking their role. By exploring practitioner experiences, this article aims to ‘write the practitioner back in’ to sociological understandings of risk and, in doing so, to problematise predominant understandings of the Prevent Strategy.

英国政府的2015年“预防策略”政策对广泛的专业人员负有法律责任，以评估与激进和反恐有关的风险。通过这样做，它将这些从业人员所需的风险工作扩展到了一个看起来与他们通常的职业职责无关的领域。在本文中，我分析了2017年春季在伦敦进行的深度访谈中与15位在伦敦的家庭支持，社会工作和医疗保健领域工作的从业人员的数据，探讨了这些参与者如何在此背景下体验《预防策略》所要求的风险工作他们的日常工作。为此，我将哈贝马斯的生活世界作为敏锐的概念基础，从三个维度探索生活经验。与从业者角色的其他方面的熟悉程度，共鸣和不和谐的领域，对身份的影响 研究结果的特征在于参与者对预防策略的意识，这明显低于政府的言论和反对派运动团体的建议。此外，它被描述为在很大程度上与其他类型的风险工作相吻合。但是，某些参与者确实感到紧张，例如，在工作中遇到激进的可能性以及对社会的潜在负面影响。这些紧张局势常常以各种方式被“消除”，使参与者能够务实地继续发挥自己的作用。通过探索从业者的经验，本文旨在“使从业者重新适应”风险的社会学理解，并在此过程中使对预防策略的主要理解成为问题。研究结果的特征在于参与者对预防策略的意识，这明显低于政府的言论和反对派运动团体的建议。此外，它被描述为在很大程度上与其他类型的风险工作相吻合。但是，某些参与者确实感到紧张，例如，在工作中遇到激进的可能性以及对社会的潜在负面影响。这些紧张局势常常以各种方式被“消除”，使参与者能够务实地继续发挥自己的作用。通过探索从业者的经验，本文旨在“使从业者重新适应”风险的社会学理解，并在此过程中使对预防策略的主要理解成为问题。研究结果的特征在于参与者对预防策略的意识，这明显低于政府的言论和反对派运动团体的建议。此外，它被描述为在很大程度上与其他类型的风险工作相吻合。但是，某些参与者确实感到紧张，例如，在工作中遇到激进的可能性以及对社会的潜在负面影响。这些紧张局势常常以各种方式被“消除”，使参与者能够务实地继续发挥自己的作用。通过探索从业者的经验，本文旨在“使从业者重新适应”风险的社会学理解，并在此过程中使对预防策略的主要理解成为问题。