Suchergebnisse

Die Autoren diskutieren die Herausforderungen der Komplexität in den gegenwärtigen militärischen Einsätzen, basierend auf der Annahme, dass die Gruppen und Organisationen nach Paradigmen der Führung, Organisation und Governance aus dem 19. Jahrhundert funktionieren. Der Fokus ihrer theoretischen Betrachtungen liegt zum einen auf den Veränderungen der Rolle des Militärs im Hinblick auf die Beteiligung an umfassenden Auslandseinsätzen, und integrierten Sicherheitslösungen, welche neue intellektuelle Herausforderungen an die Führungskräfte stellen. Die Autoren thematisieren zweitens die Anforderung der militärischen Führungskräfte, sich von der Entscheidungsfindung zur Sinnstiftung zu bewegen, was ein weiterer wichtiger Aspekt darstellt, um eine authentische Führung auch unter schwierigen Bedingungen und unter Berücksichtigung des möglichen Konflikts zwischen dem, was unter "menschlicher Sicherheit" und "staatlicher Sicherheit" verstanden wird, zu gewährleisten. Die Autoren analysieren die Kluft zwischen traditionellen und umfassenderen Formen der Führung im Hinblick auf fünf zentrale Implikationen für die Militärführer: Konvergenz, Rechenschaftspflicht und Gemeingut, das Management von Bürokratien gegenüber Führungskräften, die Rolle von mentalen Fähigkeiten sowie Wertorientierung und unabhängiges moralisches Urteilen. (ICI).

"Whether an engineer, a doctor, a politician or a mother, everyone practices evaluation every day of their life. One evaluates whether the rice has finished cooking, whether the proposed law will address the problem at hand, which diagnostic tests to do in response to the patient's symptoms and whether the bridge design is adequate for extreme weather conditions. Each of these evaluative acts has a purpose in mind, requires information, and assesses that information against the context and against standards (explicitly and implicitly), in order to catalyze an action. Although everyone has this inherent familiarity with evaluation, in a professional setting it often becomes rife with misunderstandings, complexities and challenges. Therefore, it is useful to start with first principles - what is evaluation? Definitions abound within the professional evaluation field, with many of the major evaluation theorists having developed their own variations (Patton 2008; Rossi et al. 1999). Almost all of these have at their core a set of common characteristics: the systematic nature of the process, competent data collection methodology, and assessment or valuing of the findings. Overlaying these characteristics with peacebuilding, one can define evaluation for our purposes as the use of social science data collection methods (including participatory processes) to investigate the quality and value of programming that addresses the core driving factors and actors of violent conflict or supports the driving factors and actors of peace (Church 2008). In this definition, 'quality' refers to the caliber of the implementation; including the conflict analysis from which a peacebuilding strategy is derived, the planning as well as the implementation process (a blend of logistics, tactics and peacebuilding technique). 'Value', on the other hand, inquires into the changes associated with the intervention and their significance to the target population in terms of stopping violence or building peace. Both quality and value are essential components of program evaluation. This chapter explores the state of the art of evaluation in peacebuilding. After reviewing recent developments (section 2) and current practice (section 3), it proposes that peacebuilding evaluations are generally not delivering accountability and learning in the manner in which they should for two primary reasons. First, the average evaluation is not grounded in the basics of good evaluation practice. Significantly more attention is given to responding to peacebuilding's perceived `distinctiveness' and the challenges this distinctiveness raises than to ensuring that the basics are covered (see section 4). The second reason is that the core drivers of evaluation - accountability and learning - are rarely held at the heart of the process (see section 5). Section 6 gives some recommendations for improving evaluation in the peacebuilding field, followed by a short conclusion. Methodological challenges, of which there are many, are not covered in this chapter. While the field needs to address these challenges in a thoughtful manner, the issues of quality and the motivations behind evaluation are at the foundation of evaluation practice. No improvements in methodology will fundamentally change the contribution of evaluations if these issues are not adequately addressed." (excerpt)

"While nonviolent techniques have been widely used by single-interest groups such as trade unions and anti-nuclear, indigenous or environmentalist movements, this chapter refers primarily to nation-wide campaigns by identity or national groups who are challenging internal oppression or external aggression and occupation, and are seeking either self-determination or civil rights in a truly democratic and multicultural state. The chapter is structured as follows: section 2 defines the concept of nonviolent resistance, its aims and methods, and compares its main characteristics with those of other approaches to conflict transformation. It also provides a brief overview of a range of terms usually associated with nonviolence, and their implications for theory and practice. In this chapter, the term 'nonviolent resistance' (henceforth also NVR) refers both to the process of social change through active nonviolence and to a specific set of methods of action for effecting change. Section 3 addresses the conceptual and empirical developments in the field of nonviolent resistance. It draws a distinction between two types of arguments, the so-called 'principled' and 'pragmatic' trends, which are often handled as polar opposites in the literature, but are treated here as complementary. When combined, they present nonviolent action as both an ethical and efficient strategy to effect socio-political change. The most significant nonviolent campaigns since WWII are also briefly listed, as well as recent developments in NVR training and uses of nonviolent techniques for third-party conflict intervention. The remaining two sections of the chapter offer a closer analysis of two processes of constructive conflict transformation through NVR, arguing that nonviolent struggles might support the goals of peacemaking and peacebuilding by transforming unbalanced power relations in preparation for conflict negotiations (section 4), and by using self-limiting conflict strategies that reduce inter-party polarization and encourage democratic practices (section 5). Empirical illustrations of these dynamics are provided through a case study of the first Palestinian intifada against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (1987-1993)" (excerpt)