Since the early work on defining and analyzing resilience in domains such as engineering, ecology and psychology, the concept has gained significant traction in many fields of research and practice. It has also become a very powerful justification for various policy goals in the water sector, evident in terms like flood resilience, river resilience, and water resilience. At the same time, a substantial body of literature has developed that questions the resilience concept's systems ontology, natural science roots and alleged conservatism, and criticizes resilience thinking for not addressing power issues. In this study, we review these critiques with the aim to develop a framework for power‐sensitive resilience analysis. We build on the three faces of power to conceptualize the power to define resilience. We structure our discussion of the relevant literature into five questions that need to be reflected upon when applying the resilience concept to social–hydrological systems. These questions address: (a) resilience of what, (b) resilience at what scale, (c) resilience to what, (d) resilience for what purpose, and (e) resilience for whom; and the implications of the political choices involved in defining these parameters for resilience building or analysis. Explicitly considering these questions enables making political choices explicit in order to support negotiation or contestation on how resilience is defined and used. This article is categorized under: Human Water > Water Governance. Engineering Water > Planning Water.

This paper contributes to ongoing debates about the possibilities/impossibilities and particular challenges related to conducting field research in conflict settings by addressing a particular topic of concern: collaboration between researchers, organisations, respondents, and other actors present in the field. Whereas collaboration with local actors has been common for reasons of access and security, there seems to be a lack of recognition of the manner in which collaboration in the field shapes the generation of knowledge on conflict and post-conflict settings. The objectives of this paper are twofold: (i) to highlight the potential contribution of research collaborations in conflict environments beyond pragmatic considerations of access and security; and (ii) to argue for more explicit attention to how such forms of collaboration influence the construction of knowledge and for more rigour in tracing the implications of such cooperation. The paper seeks to contribute to continuous learning on the possibilities/impossibilities of working with interactive research under conditions of conflict and insecurity.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract