Interfaith dialogue garnered considerable positive attention and derision after September 11, 2001. This article critically examines expectations of interfaith dialogue by clarifying explicit and implicit suppositions of how and why things will change because of dialogue. Three broad approaches to dialogue are identified: theological, political, and peacebuilding. Hypotheses about change within each approach are identified and explored through case examples. The article argues that while interfaith dialogue can contribute to personal, relational, and structural change, each of the three approaches does not do so equally. The article concludes that proactive reflection on theories of change within dialogue is necessary for interfaith dialogue to achieve its potential to build peace.
Linking peacebuilding and development is an emerging area of specialisation. Changes in the political, social, and economic contexts, the intangible dimensions of attitudinal and relational change, and the need to take a long-term perspective in order to capture the effects of programming all pose substantial challenges to peacebuilding programming for development agencies. This article provides a series of guiding questions for evaluation which can also be used in the planning and monitoring stages of a peacebuilding or conflictsensitive development programming. 1 Drawing upon the work of scholars and practitioners working in the fields of development and peacebuilding, the article presents a process to generate strategic building blocks for a comprehensive approach to evaluating peacebuilding programming. The Challenges of Evaluating Peacebuilding In recent years the international community has devoted significant attention and resources to 'peacebuilding' in post-settlement societies. United Nations agencies, the World Bank, national and international non-governmental organisations, and donor agencies now use the language of peacebuilding to describe their work. Peacebuilding covers a wide and amorphous set of activities at different stages of conflict, leading some to wonder what it actually is. To complicate matters, the literature on peacebuilding offers differing interpretations of the concept. The variation usually centres on the stage at which peacebuilding occurs and the range of actions it comprises. A sampling of three definitions by Evans (1993:9), Lederach (1997:20) and Boutros-Ghali (1992:11) illustrates these distinctions. Evans' and Lederach's definitions include efforts before and after an outbreak of conflict, whereas Boutros-Ghali's definition focuses on actions following the outbreak of violent conflict, emphasising the post-accord nature of peacebuilding. One definition refers to peacebuilding as strategy (Evans), another as action (Boutros-Ghali), and the third as processes, approaches, and stages (Lederach); the latter being the most comprehensive in scope. We define peacebuilding broadly in this article to refer to actions taken to prevent violent conflict from erupting and efforts taken to end violent conflict and subsequently to transform relationships, interactions, and structures after the violence subsides. 2 Peacebuilding activities can be undertaken on many 'tracks' (Diamond & McDonald 1996) and in many sectors, whether by development agencies, community-based organisations, the media, business or political leaders. The goal is to create, support, or enhance healthy and sustainable interactions, relationships, and structures that are tolerant, respectful,
Participatory action research fits well with conflict resolution and peacebuilding; it is used by scholar-practitioners as part of field-based practice efforts that contribute to transforming conflict and add to scholarly knowledge. However, as Cynthia Chataway’s analysis of a participatory action research project undertaken with the Mohawk community of Kahnawake indicated, there are considerable constraints on mutual inquiry when it occurs in settings marked by historical oppression, distrust of outsiders and internal division; these constraints require the model to respond to the community context. Drawing on this insight, this paper explores a recent collaborative, community-based research that was part of a larger youth-centered peacebuilding and security initiative in Haiti. The initiative involved partners from Canada supporting a non-governmental organization and youth in four communities to engage in action research, under the umbrella of community-based research, as part of the 26-month project. The article draws out insights on ways in which the community-based research approach adapted to the conflict context, and reflects on the ways in which this form of engaged scholarship adds to knowledge in conflict resolution and peacebuilding.
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.