This paper examines four models of debriefing practices applied by the team of authors in settings working with conflict resolution and peacemaking practitioners. It examines the effectiveness of these methods in particular, and of the practice of debriefing as a reflective tool in the context of peacemaking practice. All research was conducted as part of an Applied Practice and Theory team, under the supervision of Dr. Susan Allen, at George Mason University's School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution. IntroductionThe concept of reflective practice has been central to conflict resolution practice and peacemaking for many years, resulting in the development and promotion of numerous methodologies and tools for engaging in such reflective processes. The concept of reflective practice in this field is most commonly attributed to Donald Schön, whose works The Reflective Practitioner and Educating the Reflective Practitioner have been widely applied to conflict resolution education and practice, however, applications of reflective practice in peacemaking and conflict resolution have also been articulated in the works of John Paul Lederach and Wallace Warfield, among others. This paper will engage in an exploration of one such tool: reflective debriefing. It will examine several structural processes for debriefing in conflict resolution practice, as explored by the team of authors over a one-year time span in which four debriefing approaches were piloted with conflict resolution practitioners either singly or in groups, discuss benefits and drawbacks of these approaches, and engage in a wider exploration of the applicability of reflective debriefing processes for the peacemaking and conflict resolution field moving forward.Debriefing can be understood in this context as both a space and a process that provides opportunities for reflection. It is useful to think about debriefing not only as a process of interaction, but also as a structure, in that it provides a set space and time for reflection and processing to occur. Many of the conflict resolution and
This article critically engages with the need for success, a deep structure influencing, as we will argue, not only the outcome of international peace interventions today, but the very ways we think, understand, and evaluate interventions. We engage with this deep structure through a deconstructive double reading of the representations it creates and the influence of those representations on the everyday life of those exposed to it in the city of Mostar, in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
This study, while centered within the scholarship of education reform in postconflict Bosnia–Herzegovina (BiH), shifts the locus of focus from large‐scale debates between international organizations and national political bodies toward a consideration of the individuals within the system on the ground. Through the voices of primary school teachers, directors, and pedagogues across eight cities in BiH, this analysis casts light on the struggles facing children and educators in postconflict BiH today, and administrators and reformers within the education frame these struggles. The article concludes that the shifting and ruptured identities of a postwar generation, combined with the economic and social‐emotional struggles facing these populations, point toward affective challenges encountered on a daily basis as both educators and children make their lives in the day‐to‐day reality of today’s BiH. This framework suggests that dichotomies such as monoethnic/multiethnic and segregated/integrated may be eclipsing more nuanced issues within the practice of education and education reform in BiH. The conversations presented in these pages officer a renewed perspective, critical for scholars of peace studies, as we consider the role of education systems in postaccord societies and the effects they can be expected to bring about.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.