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 builds on the author’s research concerning the role of collective memory in identity-based conflicts, as well as his practical work as the co-director of the Imagine Center for Conflict Transformation and as a trainer and facilitator with various Azerbaijani-Armenian dialogue initiatives. It is not a comprehensive study of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, but presents a general overview of the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process, what has contributed to its failure, and which areas require major rethinking of conventional approaches. The discussion does not intend to present readers with a set of conclusions, but to provide suggestions for further critical research.
The field of peace and conflict studies has been maturing over the past few decades, not least thanks to the continual epistemological contestation between its philosophy and methodology. As a consequence, the methods of conflict resolution practice have been evolving. Dominated by realist approaches of conflict management during the Cold War, the field in the 1990s relied heavily on neo-liberal theories of economic interdependence, democracy building, and interest-based negotiations that can bring win-win outcomes. By the late 2000s, as the constructivist paradigm and critical theory started gaining ground in academia, the conceptual conversation shifted toward the possibilities of building inclusive societies and achieving structural and cultural peace via conflict transformation, rather than resolution, as the respective methodology.
In 2021, only a few locally led peacebuilding institutions worked to build bridges across the Armenian–Azerbaijani conflict that had divided the two societies for over three decades. This stood in sharp contrast with the recent past, when the environment was saturated by civil society institutions promoting peace and cross-border co-operation. The reasons for the dissipation of the once-vibrant scene of institutionalized peacebuilding included the decreased European and US support for democratization and civil society, the crackdown on and stigmatization of peacebuilding, military escalation, and the Second Karabakh War. The collapse of the professionalized scene, however, was not the end of peacebuilding. As institutions retreated, decentralized online networks connecting Armenians and Azerbaijanis sprang into existence. The article explores the journey of Caucasus Edition, a peacebuilding journal, whose ongoing reflection and action cycle process led it to transform from a professional institution into a decentralized transnational network. It highlights the relative effectiveness of decentralized structures, particularly their resiliency and adaptability, compared to professionalized civil society institutions susceptible to cooptation or crackdown in non-democratic political environments.
No abstract
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.