Interviews With Counter Terrorism, 2024

Neurodivergent traits are increasingly being identified within counter-terrorism (CT) discourse as individual risk factors for radicalisation. This approach, however, risks oversimplifying complex pathways into extremism by focusing on personal characteristics rather than the broader social and technological environments in which radicalisation occurs. In particular, the role of online algorithms in shaping extremist exposure has received little attention in relation to the involvement of neurodivergent people. This study was motivated by concerns that medicalised and stereotypical understandings of neurodiversity, especially autism, may be shaping CT practice in ways that echo earlier discriminatory patterns, most notably the disproportionate scrutiny of Muslim communities under Prevent.

Aims and Scope
The research aimed to explore whether CT police practitioners recognise neurodivergent people as being vulnerable to exploitation by online algorithms, and whether practitioners feel equipped to understand and respond to neurodivergence within extremist contexts. Moving beyond a narrow focus on autistic suspects, the study sought to examine broader experiences of neurodivergence in CT policing and to develop solution-focused, neuroaffirming recommendations that challenge potentially harmful narratives about vulnerability and risk.

Key Findings
Practitioners largely equated neurodiversity with autism, often using medicalised language and focusing predominantly on young autistic males associated with right-wing extremism. There was limited recognition of other forms of neurodivergence or of adult and female experiences.
Participants widely agreed that online algorithms play a significant role in contemporary radicalisation, describing processes whereby individuals move from “innocent” online content, such as memes or gaming, into increasingly extreme material through recommendation systems. While this pathway was seen in both neurodivergent and neurotypical individuals, practitioners often attributed heightened vulnerability among autistic people to traits such as “fixation” or social isolation. However, these interpretations tended to be surface-level, frequently overlooking situational factors, structural vulnerabilities and the role of online ecosystems.
A recurring challenge was distinguishing intent, ideology and harm in cases involving neurodivergent individuals, particularly where online offences were committed without clear understanding of consequences.
Training and partnership working were inconsistent. Only half of the participants had received any neurodiversity training, and limited knowledge often led to reliance on stereotypes when assessing risk. Practitioners reported frustration with gaps in multi-agency support, describing how neurodivergent individuals frequently fell between services due to risk-averse practices and unclear ownership of responsibility.