Suchergebnisse

'Peace research has been under-going an "ethnographic turn" whereby peace researchers are increasingly influenced by anthropology - as well as sociology and feminist studies. Gearoid Millar has put together a magnificent line up of authors who have grappled first hand with the ethical and practical challenges of field research. This is a must-have companion for everyone about to embark on field research, and underscores the importance of putting people - and their experiences - at the heart of our research.' Roger Mac Ginty, Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Manchester, UK 'This is an important book that elaborates an approach to studying conflict that puts those who experience conflict at the centre. Ethnographic peace research is based on the premise that we can only understand conflict or peace through the lived experience of those who are there. This book is a timely antidote to approaches that remove the study of actual people from research, whilst developing a convincing argument that mixed approaches incorporating ethnography can provide a sufficiently accurate understanding of violence and how it can be overcome.' Paul Jackson, Professor of African Politics, University of Birmingham, UK This volume calls for an empirical extension of the "local turn" within peace research. Building on insights from conflict transformation, gender studies, critical International Relations and Anthropology, the contributions critique existing peace research methods as affirming unequal power, marginalizing local communities, and stripping the peace kept of substantive agency and voice. By incorporating scholars from these various fields the volume pushes for more locally grounded, ethnographic and potentially participatory approaches. While recognizing that any Ethnographic Peace Research (EPR) agenda must incorporate a variety of methodologies, the volume nonetheless paves a clear path for the much needed empirical turn within the local turn literature. Gearoid Millar is a Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor) of Sociology at the Institute for Conflict, Transition, and Peace Research (ICTPR), University of Aberdeen

"This book aims to outline and promote an ethnographic approach to evaluating international peacebuilding interventions in transitional states. While the evaluation of peacebuilding and transitional justice efforts has been a growing concern in recent years, too often evaluations assess projects based on locally irrelevant measures, reinforce the status quo distribution of power in transitional situations, and uncritically accept the implicit conceptions of the funders, planners, and administrators of such projects. This book argues that evaluating the effects of peacebuilding interventions demands an understanding of the local and culturally variable context of intervention"--Product description.

For 50 years positive peace has served as an aspirational goal for many scholars and practitioners of peace. However, much recent scholarly literature evidences a substantial ambivalence toward this ambition, suggesting that prominent theories, policies and practices in the field have failed to support positive peace. This article argues that a key reason for this shortcoming is the field's failure to respond adequately to the evolving character of conflict (latent and overt) related to technological, legal and economic changes associated with the consolidation of globalization over this period. This consolidation has served to shrink the distances between previously remote actors, to expand exponentially the influence of many institutions, norms, practices and projects as they penetrate new societies, to concentrate power into the hands of ever fewer actors, and to reify instead of deconstruct endemic inequality and marginalization within states, between states, and across the globe. The failure of the field to respond robustly to these changes also prompts concerns about its ability to face sweeping challenges soon to come related to technological innovation, climate change, demographic shifts, labour automation and the search for new governance models. This article, therefore, reaffirms the aspirational goals of peace and conflict studies by building on Lederach's earlier Peacebuilding Triangle to propose a Trans-Scalar Peace System which would recognize the need for coherent and supplementary policies and actions across scales (global, regional, international, nation and local) and utilize a backward-mapping approach to promote a parity of esteem for actors, institutions and decisions at each scale which would, at the same time, privilege the voice of those with the most pertinent knowledge, experience and capacity for action in support of any given policy or practice. Such an approach would honour the lessons of the 'local turn' while developing a global trans-scalar peace

For 50 years positive peace has served as an aspirational goal for many scholars and practitioners of peace. However, much recent scholarly literature evidences a substantial ambivalence toward this ambition, suggesting that prominent theories, policies and practices in the field have failed to support positive peace. This article argues that a key reason for this shortcoming is the field's failure to respond adequately to the evolving character of conflict (latent and overt) related to technological, legal and economic changes associated with the consolidation of globalization over this period. This consolidation has served to shrink the distances between previously remote actors, to expand exponentially the influence of many institutions, norms, practices and projects as they penetrate new societies, to concentrate power into the hands of ever fewer actors, and to reify instead of deconstruct endemic inequality and marginalization within states, between states, and across the globe. The failure of the field to respond robustly to these changes also prompts concerns about its ability to face sweeping challenges soon to come related to technological innovation, climate change, demographic shifts, labour automation and the search for new governance models. This article, therefore, reaffirms the aspirational goals of peace and conflict studies by building on Lederach's earlier Peacebuilding Triangle to propose a Trans-Scalar Peace System which would recognize the need for coherent and supplementary policies and actions across scales (global, regional, international, nation and local) and utilize a backward-mapping approach to promote a parity of esteem for actors, institutions and decisions at each scale which would, at the same time, privilege the voice of those with the most pertinent knowledge, experience and capacity for action in support of any given policy or practice. Such an approach would honour the lessons of the 'local turn' while developing a global trans-scalar peace system.

Quite a lot of recent peacebuilding scholarship has deployed the concept of 'the everyday'. In an extension of the local turn's emphasis on agency and resistance, much of this scholarship interprets the everyday as inherently a site of politics. It does so either by interpreting every act (no matter how motivated) as an agentic political act, or by equating agentic political acts (at the local level) with the quotidian activities which define the everyday. This article argues, however, that representing the everyday in this way interprets both forms of activity in ways which have critical implications for peacebuilding theory, because both moves inadvertently strip everyday acts of the emergent creativity and innovation inherent to 'everyday-ness'. Alternative understandings of and engagement with different forms of agency would encourage peace scholars to acknowledge the overtly political nature of peace projects and so to reserve 'the everyday' label for pre-political forms of action which may contribute to peace, but in a more unintentional, organic or emergent fashion. This is not to argue that everyday acts are a-political or non-political, but only that they do not have political motivations and are not themselves products of conscious will to power, or even to peace itself.

AbstractLarge‐scale land investment projects in sub‐Saharan Africa have received substantial criticism for their negative local impacts, but few studies discuss specifically their application of corporate power on the ground. This article provides an examination of such application in rural Sierra Leone. The article describes how one corporation both directly and indirectly co‐opted authority and privatized force in order to wield power over the land and people. The data illustrate how local authorities and security actors were incentivized to defend the interests of the corporation as opposed to the local communities they supposedly represent and protect. Such processes ensured corporate power not only over the land but also over the local population. The findings, therefore, demand more robust and multidimensional accountability mechanisms to avoid the corporate acquisition of power in rural Africa. Such mechanisms would demand: (1) that investing corporations be more informed about local sociocultural, economic, and political dynamics on the ground; (2) that funders and local governments fund, report on, and enforce more regular, culturally sensitive, and independent assessments of project impacts; and (3) that funders, governments, corporations, and customary elites be held accountable for the negative impacts of such projects by international and national civil society organizations.