The counter-extremism think tank, The Quilliam Foundation, this week published a new report entitled Immigrant, Muslim, Female: Triple Paralysis? It reports the results of a poll carried out among unemployed South Asian Muslim women earlier this year.

The interest in this poll, despite its relatively small sample size, lies in the fact that the research is being conducted by a think tank, whose focus is counter-extremism, among a group that has the highest rate of unemployment both in terms of religion and ethnicity in the UK. The implication is that the Quilliam Foundation is exploring a direct relationship between lack of employment and extremism.

This is not a new connection, of course. Evidence of the link goes back to the rise of Hitler in the Great Depression and beyond. What is useful in this report, however, is what it reveals about the group that it is focused upon: South Asian Muslim Women.

The results show that over half of the respondents did in fact want to be employed but, according to the research, were being held back by the lack of support both from within their own communities and from the government. The report was particularly at pains to point out that none of the respondents cited their religion as a reason for not wanting to work.

According to the report, 49% of respondents did cite ‘cultural factors’, such as lack of support from husbands and family, as one of the main factors in not entering the job market. For the overwhelming majority of the respondents though, the overriding impediment was the lack of access to English classes.

What the language barrier points to is that, for South Asian Muslim women, the issue is not employment per se but rather access to the job market through effective communication. From the integration point of view, getting these women into the workplace and interacting with colleagues from different backgrounds is another step along the road towards a more harmonious society.

This is undoubtedly right but two thoughts rear their heads. First, community integration and the ending of the kind of isolation that can breed extremism can be facilitated at the school gate, voluntary groups and parent-toddler groups just as well as it can in the workplace. Employment is not the only answer. Indeed, the investigation of the 9/11 attacks showed that someone can live and interact for years with colleagues and still hold, even act upon, extremist ideologies.

Second, there are signs that this lack of employment maybe a temporary phenomenon, as the evidence coming out of areas such as Tower Hamlets (one of the areas included in the Quilliam Survey) which has a high Bengladeshi Syletti population shows that girls who are second or third generation immigrants are some of the highest achievers in GCSE and A-Levels. If that trend were to continue, then it must be true that the biggest inhibitor to employment, the language barrier, will become less of an issue over time.

Employment is important but it is not a silver bullet. It can be one in a series of measures, but I think that by highlighting the lack of employment amongst South Asian Muslim women Quilliam have pointed at the indicator, rather than the incubator of integration and counter-extremism. Employment is good for interacting with wider society and contributing to it, but in the end, it is only one among many ways in which any person can interact with another.

As the report rightly acknowledged, it is language that facilitates opportunity and interaction. Whatever context that interaction is carried out in should be the choice of the woman. Employment is simply one of the possibilities.

Sean Oliver-Dee is an Associate Research Fellow at the London School of Theology. His essay, Religion and Identity: Divided loyalties? is available here.