Introduction

Collecting survey data from political extremists (or persons affiliated with extremist political groups) presents a set of unique challenges. Many of these challenges are faced by researchers investigating other hard-to-survey populations (e.g., political extremists are rare, difficult to identify, and under some circumstances may be reluctant to participate in research), but not in combination as they are with this particular group of potential respondents. In this chapter, we first develop a working definition of political extremism. We next provide an overview of the challenges faced by researchers who want to study political extremism and examine some of the strategies employed by investigators when attempting to study political extremists. Finally, we examine some of the ethical issues involved in conducting survey research with persons who espouse extremist political ideologies.

Defining “political extremism”

“Political extremists” have multiple self-identities and it is a challenge to develop an operational definition that adequately covers this diversity. In practice, political extremism at the individual level has been defined in two primary ways. First, it is often viewed in terms of the behaviors associated with it. For example, van Es and Koenig (1976) see political extremism as the use of coercion to force change in political institutions and authority. Political extremists, then, have sometimes been defined as those who engage in these behaviors or who advocate them. Secondly, others have defined political extremists in terms of the attitudes or beliefs that they hold. In his Dictionary of Political Thought, Scruton (1982) suggests that political extremism involves pushing ideas to their limits, intolerance of competing viewpoints, confronting and eliminating opposition, and demonstrating a disregard for the rights of others. Similarly, Midlarsky (2011, p. 7) provides a definition of political extremism that integrates both beliefs and behaviors, which he suggests is:

Introduction

This Handbook responds to the evolution in the ownership of companies and financial assets over the past thirty to fifty years. It also is concerned with the more recent widespread failure of pensions and other long-term savings vehicles to deliver on sustainable financial security goals for the individuals whose monies they are investing.

The volume highlights important changes in the landscape of finance, especially with regard to institutional investors: those large financial institutions entrusted to manage most of our savings, pensions, retirement funds, insurance assets and national wealth reserves. It primarily focuses on the changing legal understanding of the role and purpose of these institutions in many countries. This includes recognition of the influence that collective investment practices of institutional investors have on society and the greater economy, as well as the corresponding influence that economic health and social stability have on the sustainability of institutional investors’ performance and their ability to succeed in meeting long-term goals for the beneficiaries who depend on them and who collectively constitute the societies in which they exist. The Handbook is also a testament to the rapidly evolving nature of academic research and public policy discourse concerning institutional investment and financial markets.

The world currently faces increasingly complex governance challenges. While there is a growing recognition that we urgently need to take a longer-term view in order to deal with them successfully, many of the incentives that shape the thoughts and actions of leaders encourage myopia in the private and public sectors alike. Strategies with a high probability of success are available but not pursued because powerful short-term incentives are increasingly misaligned with the timeframes required for the solution of growing problems with profoundly destructive inter-generational impacts.

Thus far, legislators have not adequately addressed these inter-generational issues. In previous eras, when obvious and invidious injustices grew to intolerable scale due to the protracted paralysis of leaders, the necessity for action has often found its venue, by default, in the judiciary. Now, once again, courts – responding to specific fact situations – may well play a critical role in breaking this logjam. One likely legal strategy is based on the concept of fiduciary duty – the legal obligation to act in the best interests of others.