Playful Religion: An Innovative Approach to Prevent Radicalisation of Muslim Youth in Europe

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article is about an important topic (de-radicalisation) and with an innovative angle (playful religion). It would definitely fit within this journal and is highly topical, but does not some serious improvement I think. Let me focus on three points of issue:

1) In the introduction the author deals with the topic of radicalization. However, the critical research on this topic is not mentioned at all, for example Kundnani, Heath-Kelley, Fadil et al. These authors critically engage with the concept of radicalization which has bearing on the authors try to do here: exploring and using the role of religion in de-radicalization. Also, and for example, when the authors engage with the idea of 'the fanatic' they do not mention the long history of this term within European Islamophobia (Renton). How does their work deal with these critical issues, engaging it, reproducing it and so on? Furthermore, in the way they work with de-radicalization and resilience, they seem to say the latter means resilience against radical ideologies (p4), but what does that mean for how the conceptualize radicalization or their particular work in de-radicalization. Furthermore, their focus on resilience means to analyze and support people's abilities to negotiate and navigate particular resources in relation to well being (p.6). This ties in with an important point in critical radicalization studies: to what extent does their approach de-politicizes people's actions, or even hinder people's attempts to improve society? In other words, what is the space of for activism in their approach?

 

2) I think the authors can do more with the idea of playful religion here. It is in their title, but not very much explored with only a reference to Van Baal but not to more recent work done by Droogers (2011 -> which is in the references by the way).

3) Most importantly, and crucial, their actual case study and discussion of it is only two pages out of 13, making it explored only superficially. More needs to be done, in particular to sustain the claim that the module is a 'is a promising module to be implemented in formal and informal education.' Why is that? What are the criteria for this? What are the problems and the weaknesses of this approach?

The authors conclude, for example, "Pilot studies with the game confirm that students are eager to learn more about their parents’ religiosity, as a result of the increasing pressure from society to take responsibility for their life orientation and their involvement in society". But what are the sources for this?

Also "Worth mentioning is that the feeling of ‘doubt’ was difficult to score. Also remarkable worth mentioning is that a positive response prevailed in the scores regarding being a muslim in the Netherlands." What is the relevance here? To the idea of radicalization, the method? Furthermore, "As a diagnostic instrument the ‘questionnaire’ met the expectations." We have not read what those expectation are very clearly yet. And "A prerequisite for the success of the module, and of the game in particular, is that the
teacher/coach performs her/his role well." Yes, but given the different kinds of expertise and skills asked, this could be a weak point too?

So far, the conclusion is not sustained by the case-study and the idea of playful religion seems to be lost there. It is really necessary to improve this.

 

Suggestions:

Heath-Kelly, C.  (2012) ' Reinventing prevention or exposing the gap? False positives in UK terrorism governance and the quest for pre-emption', Critical Studies on Terrorism,5(1), pp.69-87.

Heath-Kelly, C. (2013) 'Counter-terrorism and the counterfactual: producing the 'Radicalisation' discourse and the UK PREVENT Strategy', The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 15 (3), pp. 394-415.

Kundnani, Arun. “Radicalisation: The Journey of a Concept.” Race & Class, vol. 54,1, 2012, pp. 3-25

Nadia Fadil, Francesco Ragazzi, and Martin de Koning (eds), Radicalisation in

Belgium and the Netherlands: Narratives of Violence and Security (London: I.B. Tauris, 2019)

James Renton (2018) The figure of the fanatic: a rebel against Christian sovereignty, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 41:12, 2161-2178

 

Author Response

Thanks to this reviewer for inviting us to read additional literature on the concepts of 'radicalisation' and 'resilience'. 

We read the advised literature and added this to our description of the concept of 'radicalisation' and 'resilience'.  We elaborated more on the concept of playfulness and humour. We articulated our understanding of the concept of resilience. We connected our conclusions to the results of the data-analysi All revisions are marked in red in the re-submitted text.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting article that suggests an innovative method for tackling radicalisation. Section 2 is strong - presenting the educational context.

Points to consider for revision are noted throughout the attached text, including:

A need for further references in key places to strengthen the academic soundness of the piece. Consistency with page numbering of references. Possible (uncritical) over-reliance on a single source in 2.2. In line 275 you say that 'the development of resilience' is a 'focus in this contribution' - if this is the case it should be made clear from the abstract, throughout. The methodological sections need strengthening - for example the sample choice, the method of data analysis etc. need more information for the reader. Avoid using secondary references - always go back to the original source / reference (eg. L258, L274) Avoid colloquialisms - for example; stable doors and horses that have bolted. Minor typos etc.

This isn't a huge job and certainly this is do-able and worth doing to make this article even more relevant to educators within the field. I wish you well with this.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the comments, that really helped us to improve our text.

we referred to a second author in section 2.2 we elaborated on the concept of 'resilience' and added this to the abstract. we added information about the sample and the sample choice all our revisions are marked in red in the resubmitted text.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Acceptable, but I would advise an additional proofing of the English language in the text.

Author Response

I sent the text for additional proofreading. So far no comments received from the proofreader. That's why I decided to send the text by mail to the editor Ms. Daphne Liao.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a significantly improved submission. There are still some points to clarify - please see notes on the attached file. There is also a need for minor proofreading throughout, and there are some referencing issues (ensure all references are given, and avoid secondary citations, etc.). I think further clarification around sampling is necessary - references to support your choices.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I revised the text according to the comments in the attached file from the reviewer. Regarding the moderate changes needed by proofreading: sofar I could not get in touch with our proofreader, that's why I decided to submit the revised text by mail.