Decentring the intervention experts

Ethnographic peace research and policy engagement

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)
5 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The failures of peace interventions are often associated with their exogenously conceived and technocratic nature, which discount complexity within and diversity between post-conflict contexts. In response, scholars have resorted to concepts of empowerment, resistance, hybridity, and friction to refocus post-conflict policymaking away from ‘top-down’ and towards ‘bottom-up’ processes. Any such efforts, however, require that policymakers understand the local drivers and everyday experiences of peace interventions across a range of cases; a task for which the current tools of the intervention experts have proven unsuited. This paper, therefore, proposes an Ethnographic Peace Research (EPR) agenda which would provide access for and influence to the ‘peace kept’ and decenter the intervention experts in peacebuilding policy. In its effort to influence policy, however, an EPR agenda faces substantial challenges. These include, among others; the failure of academics to communicate clearly to non-academic audiences, the ideological biases of policymakers, and the relentless simplification of complexity. However, as will be discussed and evidenced using a variety of cases below, an EPR approach also has a number of strengths which can enhance its relevance for policy, serve to decenter the intervention experts, and develop a credible alternative bottom-up approach to policymaking in post-conflict states.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)259-276
Number of pages18
JournalCooperation and Conflict
Volume53
Issue number2
Early online date19 Apr 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2018

Fingerprint

peace policy
peace research
expert
peace
everyday experience
research approach
empowerment
driver
trend

Keywords

  • Peace Research
  • Peacebuilding Policy
  • Ethnography
  • Methodology
  • Evaluation
  • Bottom-Up

Cite this

Decentring the intervention experts : Ethnographic peace research and policy engagement. / Millar, Gearoid.

In: Cooperation and Conflict, Vol. 53, No. 2, 01.06.2018, p. 259-276.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{7dfb88fe2d9c46f880dd4bcbdaa244b5,
title = "Decentring the intervention experts: Ethnographic peace research and policy engagement",
abstract = "The failures of peace interventions are often associated with their exogenously conceived and technocratic nature, which discount complexity within and diversity between post-conflict contexts. In response, scholars have resorted to concepts of empowerment, resistance, hybridity, and friction to refocus post-conflict policymaking away from ‘top-down’ and towards ‘bottom-up’ processes. Any such efforts, however, require that policymakers understand the local drivers and everyday experiences of peace interventions across a range of cases; a task for which the current tools of the intervention experts have proven unsuited. This paper, therefore, proposes an Ethnographic Peace Research (EPR) agenda which would provide access for and influence to the ‘peace kept’ and decenter the intervention experts in peacebuilding policy. In its effort to influence policy, however, an EPR agenda faces substantial challenges. These include, among others; the failure of academics to communicate clearly to non-academic audiences, the ideological biases of policymakers, and the relentless simplification of complexity. However, as will be discussed and evidenced using a variety of cases below, an EPR approach also has a number of strengths which can enhance its relevance for policy, serve to decenter the intervention experts, and develop a credible alternative bottom-up approach to policymaking in post-conflict states.",
keywords = "Peace Research, Peacebuilding Policy, Ethnography, Methodology, Evaluation, Bottom-Up",
author = "Gearoid Millar",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0010836718768631",
language = "English",
volume = "53",
pages = "259--276",
journal = "Cooperation and Conflict",
issn = "0010-8367",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Decentring the intervention experts

T2 - Ethnographic peace research and policy engagement

AU - Millar, Gearoid

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - The failures of peace interventions are often associated with their exogenously conceived and technocratic nature, which discount complexity within and diversity between post-conflict contexts. In response, scholars have resorted to concepts of empowerment, resistance, hybridity, and friction to refocus post-conflict policymaking away from ‘top-down’ and towards ‘bottom-up’ processes. Any such efforts, however, require that policymakers understand the local drivers and everyday experiences of peace interventions across a range of cases; a task for which the current tools of the intervention experts have proven unsuited. This paper, therefore, proposes an Ethnographic Peace Research (EPR) agenda which would provide access for and influence to the ‘peace kept’ and decenter the intervention experts in peacebuilding policy. In its effort to influence policy, however, an EPR agenda faces substantial challenges. These include, among others; the failure of academics to communicate clearly to non-academic audiences, the ideological biases of policymakers, and the relentless simplification of complexity. However, as will be discussed and evidenced using a variety of cases below, an EPR approach also has a number of strengths which can enhance its relevance for policy, serve to decenter the intervention experts, and develop a credible alternative bottom-up approach to policymaking in post-conflict states.

AB - The failures of peace interventions are often associated with their exogenously conceived and technocratic nature, which discount complexity within and diversity between post-conflict contexts. In response, scholars have resorted to concepts of empowerment, resistance, hybridity, and friction to refocus post-conflict policymaking away from ‘top-down’ and towards ‘bottom-up’ processes. Any such efforts, however, require that policymakers understand the local drivers and everyday experiences of peace interventions across a range of cases; a task for which the current tools of the intervention experts have proven unsuited. This paper, therefore, proposes an Ethnographic Peace Research (EPR) agenda which would provide access for and influence to the ‘peace kept’ and decenter the intervention experts in peacebuilding policy. In its effort to influence policy, however, an EPR agenda faces substantial challenges. These include, among others; the failure of academics to communicate clearly to non-academic audiences, the ideological biases of policymakers, and the relentless simplification of complexity. However, as will be discussed and evidenced using a variety of cases below, an EPR approach also has a number of strengths which can enhance its relevance for policy, serve to decenter the intervention experts, and develop a credible alternative bottom-up approach to policymaking in post-conflict states.

KW - Peace Research

KW - Peacebuilding Policy

KW - Ethnography

KW - Methodology

KW - Evaluation

KW - Bottom-Up

U2 - 10.1177/0010836718768631

DO - 10.1177/0010836718768631

M3 - Article

VL - 53

SP - 259

EP - 276

JO - Cooperation and Conflict

JF - Cooperation and Conflict

SN - 0010-8367

IS - 2

ER -