Programming peacebuilding: representations, misrepresentations and a shift to the production of interventionary objects

Danielsson, Anna

doi:10.1057/s41268-017-0121-1

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mac Ginty (2014: 561), for instance, argues that peace initiatives rooted in ‘everyday peace,’ understood as routinized social practices used by individuals in conflict societies, ‘may have a chance of legitimacy and authenticity that may be lacking from imported initiatives.’ It is therefore crucial to understand how local knowledge emerges and by which mechanisms it is generated. For instance, it has been observed that, in conflict situations, certain problems and solutions often emerge as known and given (Danielsson, 2017). Others point to the role of distinctive gatekeeper entities that ‘make things known’ (Bueger, 2015) and the interaction between various professional epistemic communities and their knowledge networks (Verkoren, 2006).…”

Section: The Local Knowledge Gap In Peace Operationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is therefore crucial to understand how local knowledge emerges and by which mechanisms it is generated. For instance, it has been observed that, in conflict situations, certain problems and solutions often emerge as known and given (Danielsson, 2017). Others point to the role of distinctive gatekeeper entities that 'make things known' (Bueger, 2015) and the interaction between various professional epistemic communities and their knowledge networks (Verkoren, 2006).…”

Section: The Local Knowledge Gap In Peace Operationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparing how peace operations enable or restrict the influence of national staff: Contestation from within?

Eckhard¹

2018

Cooperation and Conflict

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A large share of civilian staff working in international peace operations are nationals of the host state. Academic research has not yet investigated the effect of these locally recruited bureaucrats on peacebuilding. Theoretically, it is argued that to accomplish their missions in complex environments, peace operations require crucial knowledge about local perceptions, politics, and customs. Local staff can have a positive performance impact by soliciting such knowledge. But information advantages create new principal-agent problems. Peace operations have a hard time scrutinizing their employees’ allegiances, and they risk sabotage from within. Empirically, it is shown that peace operations conducted by the United Nations (UN), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), and the European Union (EU) differ significantly in how they navigate the ensuing tension by enabling or restricting the influence of their local staff. A new data set on the staffing of 52 peace operations as well as analysis of internal staff policies yields significant variance in the potential of local staff to influence peacebuilding policy implementation, which is most extensive in the OSCE, followed by the UN and the EU. This finding warrants more attention on the role of local staff as information gatekeepers who could be at the center of potential frictions between international and local norms and knowledge.

show abstract

Section: The Local Knowledge Gap In Peace Operationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Local Knowledge Gap In Peace Operationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing how peace operations enable or restrict the influence of national staff: Contestation from within?

Eckhard¹

2018

Cooperation and Conflict

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Somalia: Experiments in Knowing and Doing Capacity Building

Alcock

2020

Capacity Building for Maritime Security

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reconceptualising the politics of knowledge authority in post/conflict interventions: From a peacebuilding field to transnational fields of interventionary objects

Danielsson

2019

Eur. j. of int. secur.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peacebuilding debates increasingly revolve around questions about knowledge and expertise. Of particular interest is what (and whose) knowledge(s) ends up authoritative in interventions. This article addresses a problem in the literature on the epistemics and epistemic authority of peacebuilding interventions: the acknowledgement of but lacking attention to plural knowledges, the transgressive character of expertise, and knowledge struggles. It does this by discussing recent suggestions that peacebuilding epistemic authority can be fruitfully analysed as a Bourdieusian field. The article identifies a tension in Bourdieu's own thinking about fields, which has shaped some of these recent proposals. This tension, nevertheless, also enables a reconsideration of fields and struggles, and thereby an analysis that takes plurality and transgressiveness into account. By developing such an alternative conceptual position, the article sees peacebuilding epistemic authority as object- and struggle-bound; conditioned and dependent on dynamics that go beyond peacebuilding as a distinct field of practice. This position is illustrated in an analysis of the emergence and (temporary) establishment of epistemic authority in peacebuilding interventions on informal economies.

show abstract

Programming peacebuilding: representations, misrepresentations and a shift to the production of interventionary objects

Cited by 4 publications

References 64 publications

Comparing how peace operations enable or restrict the influence of national staff: Contestation from within?

Comparing how peace operations enable or restrict the influence of national staff: Contestation from within?

Somalia: Experiments in Knowing and Doing Capacity Building

Reconceptualising the politics of knowledge authority in post/conflict interventions: From a peacebuilding field to transnational fields of interventionary objects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About