Building resilience to radicalization has become a key pillar of many policies for preventing violent extremism. However, sustained debates over the precise nature of the terms radicalisation and resilience impact the ability to implement these policies. A growing body of literature argues that the way in which key ideas are understood matters to what happens in practice. Additionally, the cross-sector collaboration called for in PVE policy can be made more challenging through divergences in understanding of central concepts. As such, the way in which resilience to radicalization is being understood by frontline workers matters. In light of this, a q-methodology study was conducted, which identified four perspectives on resilience to radicalization amongst policy-makers and practitioners in Belgium, the Netherlands, and the UK. These perspectives are examined in light of the broader debates around both resilience and radicalization, and the extent to which the divergences matter for collaboration is considered.

建立对激进化的抵御能力已成为许多预防暴力极端主义政策的关键支柱。然而，关于激进化和复原力这两个术语的确切性质的持续辩论影响了实施这些政策的能力。越来越多的文献认为，理解关键思想的方式对实践中发生的事情很重要。此外，由于对核心概念的理解存在分歧，PVE 政策中所要求的跨部门合作可能会变得更具挑战性。因此，一线工人对激进化的适应能力的理解方式很重要。有鉴于此，我们进行了一项 q 方法研究，确定了比利时、荷兰和英国的政策制定者和从业者对激进化的韧性的四种观点。