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 explores the role of first-person action research in uncovering how positionality influences conflict resolution practice. Specifically, it examines the experiences of two scholar-practitioners conducting first-person action research in different conflict/post-conflict settings. The case studies include first-person action research on encounter programs with Pakistani youth and first-person action research examining peacebuilding engagement in the South Caucasus. We highlight the significant challenge posed by positionality for scholar-practitioners in our practice and research, particularly as members of one of the conflict parties, and present first-person action research as a constructive approach to enhance self-reflexivity and improve our practices. We argue that first-person action research highlights the fluidity of positionality and the value of building insider relationships to enhance conflict resolution practice. Concurrently, this research approach illuminates challenges resulting from insider identities because of assumed agreement. Thus, first-person action research is useful for improving conflict resolution practice because it highlights the various benefits and drawbacks of practitioners’ positionalities.
No abstract
With the global proliferation of the liberal peace agenda, there has been an increase in attention to the participation of non-governmental organizations (NGO s) in the development and support of national peace agendas. However, with the rise of authoritarian states around the world, and the closing of civic spaces, NGO s have become constrained and limited in their actions. We often see autocratic and repressive regimes not welcoming the implementation of any initiatives that fall outside the scope of their official negotiation platforms, and therefore, limiting the participation of their citizens in unofficial peacebuilding initiatives. Through the application of the authoritarian conflict management framework, this article discusses the challenges of carrying out peacebuilding work in such non-permissive environments in the context of the South Caucasus and points out ways that local peacebuilding organizations and peace activists work around these restrictions to negotiate the reconciliation space that they are attempting to create.
neopatromonialism (Driscoll), authoritarian conflict management (Heathershaw and Mullojanov), extraterritorial security (Lemon), and securityscapes (Boboyorov). While this fresh book will undoubtedly become a key source to understand contemporary Tajikistan for English speakers, I would like to indicate my two main points of contention. First, in the Introduction, we read "From the end of the civil war to around 2013, the country opened up to international scholars and partnerships between Western and local institutions.… This openness came under threat from the early 2010 and dramatically deteriorated in 2013-2014" (xvi-xvii). This point is raised, and yet, it remains largely unexplored throughout any of the chapters. Importantly, most contributions in this volume extensively draw upon intensive field research in Tajikistan, conducted over long periods of time and involving interactions with local communities, experts, and political elites. While most authors include short explanations in their chapters with regard to methods of data collection, it would be welcome-and particularly valuable for younger researchers-if they elaborated more in depth on the nature of their engagement with the country. This could include a reflection on any particular difficulties related to the choice of specific research questions and accompanying field research, as well as strategies which they developed to bypass these challenges and which allowed them to build durable and meaningful ties with various actors on the ground. This would allow the book to offer not only an empirical contribution on political and societal transformations in Tajikistan, but also make a deeper methodological contribution regarding field research on Central Asia and more broadly the post-Soviet region, and preferably even make a nuanced epistemological argument, beyond stating that the country's openness to host foreign researchers is deteriorating. Second, it is striking that out of 11 chapters, only one (Boboyorov) is written by and one (Mullojanov) coauthored by Tajik authors.
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.