This article analyses how social movements and collective actors can affect political and social transformation in a structurally violent society using the case study of Northern Ireland. We focus, in particular, on the crucial role played by collective actors within the loyalist community (those who wish to maintain Northern Ireland's place in the UK), in bringing about social and political transformation in a society blighted by direct, cultural, and structural violence both during the conflict and subsequent peace process. Drawing on data obtained through in-depth interviews with loyalist activists (including former paramilitaries), the article demonstrates the role and impact of loyalists and loyalism in Northern Ireland's transition. We identify five conflict transformation challenges addressed by loyalist actors in a structurally violent society: de-mythologizing the conflict; stopping direct violence; resisting pressure to maintain the use of violence; development of robust activist identity; and the measurement of progress through reference to the parallel conflict transformation journey of their former republican enemies. The Northern Ireland case demonstrates the necessity for holistic conflict transformation strategies which attempt not only to stop direct attacks, but also the cultural and structural violence which underpin and legitimize them. In so doing, the article contributes to a broader understanding of how and why paramilitary campaigns are brought to an end.

Great Debates in Higher Education is a series of short, accessible books addressing key challenges to and issues in Higher Education, on a national and international level. These books are research informed but debate driven. They are intended to be relevant to a broad spectrum of researchers, students and administrators in higher education, and are designed to help us unpick and assess the state of higher education systems, policies and social and economic impacts.

Since 2015 Universities, and other educational and public bodies, have been placed under a legal duty of "due regard to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism". i This reflects the belief in UK counter-terrorism policy that radicalisation exists and can be countered. Advice to universities focuses on vetting speakers and IT security, remaining largely silent on how this legal duty applies to teaching. Yet, many social science and humanities programmes generate lectures and seminar discussions where views of an allegedly radicalised nature could be aired. This article presents focus group research conducted with social science undergraduates, designed to elicit their understanding of radicalisation, and gain insights into their experience of debating contentious issues such as identity, community cohesion, and the causes of terrorism. We argue that students' understanding of radicalisation is conflated with extremism, reflecting how the two concepts have been elided in counter-terrorism circles and the media. We also explore students' anxiety about debating these issues and reliance on educators to create the right environment for such discussions, maintaining trust and common bonds in the current atmosphere of heightened security. Finally, the data presented here challenges some of the assumptions underpinning contemporary counter-radicalisation policy in the domain of higher education, which are premised on ideas of active grooming. This does not accord with students' own experiences, who regard themselves as discerning, critical thinkers rather than inherently vulnerable to manipulation by those espousing violent extremist views.

This article charts the Irish Labour Party's (ILP) journey from a minor to mainstream political party between 1987 and 1992. This is arguably the most turbulent period in the party's electoral history, when the ILP performed significantly below its average result, before making unprecedented electoral gains. It identifies the factors which led to this fall and rise during the discussed period and reflects on the ILP's place in the Irish party system arguing that the term 'mainstream' or 'proximal mainstream' party with regard to the ILP is perhaps more appropriate than the terms 'major' or 'minor' party, especially in view of its return to its usual level of support following the gains of 1992.

This article addresses an important but understudied aspect of the recent Great Recession in Europe: the institutional strategies political elites deployed to learn from past policy failures and address accountability, more specifically, truth commissions. We raise two overlapping puzzles. The first concerns the timing of the decision to adopt an economic truth commission: while Iceland established a truth commission at an early stage of the crisis, Greece and Ireland did so much later. What accounts for 'early' versus 'delayed' truth seekers? The second concerns variations in learning outcomes. Iceland's commission paved the way for learning institutional lessons, but truth commissions in Greece and Ireland became overtly politicised. What accounts for these divergences? This article compares truth commissions in Iceland, Greece and Ireland and identifies two types of political learning -institutional and instrumental -related to the establishment of a truth commission. It argues that political elites in countries with higher precrisis levels of trust in institutions and public transparency are more likely to establish economic truth commissions quickly; this is the 'institutional logic' of learning. The 'instrumental logic' of learning, in contrast, leads governments interested in apportioning blame to their predecessors to establish commissions at a later date, usually proximal to critical elections. The recent Great Recession in Europe provides an excellent avenue to explore how political elites use institutions to learn from policy failures. Of special relevance in this case are the truth commissions (TCs) established by several countries to identify the causes of their