Research
The main goal of the CPN-PREV research team is to generate evidence-based best practice guidelines aimed towards the prevention of violent extremism (PVE). In doing so, we aim to identify the best available models to prevent and assess the risk of violent extremism, while bringing forward Canadian leadership in countering the phenomenon. To qualify as “evidence-based,” CPN-PREV guidelines must be rooted in both scientific literature and expert consensus.
To root guidelines in scientific evidence, the CPN-PREV research team conducts systematic reviews on various topics related to violent extremism: online radicalization, prevention and intervention programs, trajectories in and out of violent extremism, risk assessment tools for individuals on such trajectories, and so on.
Explore by topicSystematic ReviewsWHAT ARE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS“A systematic review attempts to collate all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific research question. It uses explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view to minimizing bias, thus providing more reliable findings from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made. The key characteristics of a systematic review are 1) a clearly stated set of objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies; 2) an explicit, reproducible methodology; 3) a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies that would meet the eligibility criteria; 4) an assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies, for example through the assessment of risk of bias; and 5) a systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies.” (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011)
For detailed information on the steps inherent to a systematic review, consult Uman (2011).
Then, to ensure that guidelines are consensual among PVE professionals and adapted to on-the-ground practice, CPN-PREV conducts Delphi processes. In such processes, recommendations emerging from systematic reviews are submitted to practitioners, researchers, and decision-makers from multiple regions and sectors for evaluation and refinement. Recommendations that reach a certain level of consensus are transformed into best practice guidelines, as they benefit from both empirical validation and expert consensus.
Explore by topicDelphi ProcessesWHAT ARE DELPHI PROCESSES?“The Delphi method is a systematic way of determining expert consensus that is useful for answering questions that are not amenable to experimental and epidemiological methods. The validity of the approach is supported by ‘wisdom of crowds’ research showing that groups can make good judgements under certain conditions. In mental health research, the Delphi method has been used for making estimations where there is incomplete evidence, making predictions, determining collective values, and defining foundational concepts.” (Jorm, 2015)
For detailed information on the steps of a Delphi process, consult Jorm (2015).
The results of our systematic reviews and Delphi processes can be found in various types of documents: full reports, scientific papers, summary pamphlets, and, sometimes, summary videos and webinars. Because we believe in a “whole of society” response to violent extremism, our evidence-based best practice guidelines are directed towards audiences from multiple sectors, namely practitioners, researchers, and decision-makers.
If you want all the details, consult full reports, scientific papers, and webinars. If you want the short and sweet of it, consult summary pamphlets and summary videos. Most of our publications are available in both English and French.
References:
The Cochrane Collaboration. (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 5.1.0). https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/
Jorm A. F. (2015). Using the Delphi expert consensus method in mental health research. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 49(10), 887–897. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867415600891
Uman L. S. (2011). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 20(1), 57–59.