Ethnographic Peace Research

The Underappreciated Benefits of Long-Term Fieldwork

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

While Peace Studies has always incorporated different research methodologies, large-N quantitative methods and state-level findings have dominated the literature and had most influence on policy and practice. Today, however, the limitations of peace interventions are commonly identified with the institutional, state-centric, and technocratic approaches associated with such limited understandings and their resultant policies. This paper argues, therefore, that the inability of these methods to examine local experiences of conflict, transition, and peace in diverse sociocultural settings contributes to inadequate policy formation and, thus, to problematic interventions. Indeed, the recent ‘local turn’ and its focus on the everyday, resistance, hybridity, and friction demands research that can better interpret local experiences of conflict, transition, and peace and, thereby, discover more locally salient practice. While this paper argues that an Ethnographic Peace Research (EPR) agenda must be central to such efforts, it also argues against applying the ethnographic label to work that is more suitably described as qualitative (site visits, interviews, focus groups, etc.). The paper argues that long-term fieldwork and close engagement with the subjects of peacebuilding must be required within any EPR agenda. The underappreciated benefits of such fieldwork are illustrated with examples from research in northern Sierra Leone.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)653-676
Number of pages24
JournalInternational Peacekeeping
Volume25
Issue number5
Early online date8 Jan 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Fingerprint

peace research
peace
Sierra Leone
quantitative method
experience
methodology
interview
Group

Keywords

  • Peace Studies
  • Peace Research
  • Ethnography
  • Fieldwork
  • Methodology

Cite this

Ethnographic Peace Research : The Underappreciated Benefits of Long-Term Fieldwork. / Millar, Gearoid Michael.

In: International Peacekeeping, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2018, p. 653-676.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e87dc572fa4c441db76704c1f0005fc3,
title = "Ethnographic Peace Research: The Underappreciated Benefits of Long-Term Fieldwork",
abstract = "While Peace Studies has always incorporated different research methodologies, large-N quantitative methods and state-level findings have dominated the literature and had most influence on policy and practice. Today, however, the limitations of peace interventions are commonly identified with the institutional, state-centric, and technocratic approaches associated with such limited understandings and their resultant policies. This paper argues, therefore, that the inability of these methods to examine local experiences of conflict, transition, and peace in diverse sociocultural settings contributes to inadequate policy formation and, thus, to problematic interventions. Indeed, the recent ‘local turn’ and its focus on the everyday, resistance, hybridity, and friction demands research that can better interpret local experiences of conflict, transition, and peace and, thereby, discover more locally salient practice. While this paper argues that an Ethnographic Peace Research (EPR) agenda must be central to such efforts, it also argues against applying the ethnographic label to work that is more suitably described as qualitative (site visits, interviews, focus groups, etc.). The paper argues that long-term fieldwork and close engagement with the subjects of peacebuilding must be required within any EPR agenda. The underappreciated benefits of such fieldwork are illustrated with examples from research in northern Sierra Leone.",
keywords = "Peace Studies, Peace Research, Ethnography, Fieldwork, Methodology",
author = "Millar, {Gearoid Michael}",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1080/13533312.2017.1421860",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "653--676",
journal = "International Peacekeeping",
issn = "1353-3312",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ethnographic Peace Research

T2 - The Underappreciated Benefits of Long-Term Fieldwork

AU - Millar, Gearoid Michael

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - While Peace Studies has always incorporated different research methodologies, large-N quantitative methods and state-level findings have dominated the literature and had most influence on policy and practice. Today, however, the limitations of peace interventions are commonly identified with the institutional, state-centric, and technocratic approaches associated with such limited understandings and their resultant policies. This paper argues, therefore, that the inability of these methods to examine local experiences of conflict, transition, and peace in diverse sociocultural settings contributes to inadequate policy formation and, thus, to problematic interventions. Indeed, the recent ‘local turn’ and its focus on the everyday, resistance, hybridity, and friction demands research that can better interpret local experiences of conflict, transition, and peace and, thereby, discover more locally salient practice. While this paper argues that an Ethnographic Peace Research (EPR) agenda must be central to such efforts, it also argues against applying the ethnographic label to work that is more suitably described as qualitative (site visits, interviews, focus groups, etc.). The paper argues that long-term fieldwork and close engagement with the subjects of peacebuilding must be required within any EPR agenda. The underappreciated benefits of such fieldwork are illustrated with examples from research in northern Sierra Leone.

AB - While Peace Studies has always incorporated different research methodologies, large-N quantitative methods and state-level findings have dominated the literature and had most influence on policy and practice. Today, however, the limitations of peace interventions are commonly identified with the institutional, state-centric, and technocratic approaches associated with such limited understandings and their resultant policies. This paper argues, therefore, that the inability of these methods to examine local experiences of conflict, transition, and peace in diverse sociocultural settings contributes to inadequate policy formation and, thus, to problematic interventions. Indeed, the recent ‘local turn’ and its focus on the everyday, resistance, hybridity, and friction demands research that can better interpret local experiences of conflict, transition, and peace and, thereby, discover more locally salient practice. While this paper argues that an Ethnographic Peace Research (EPR) agenda must be central to such efforts, it also argues against applying the ethnographic label to work that is more suitably described as qualitative (site visits, interviews, focus groups, etc.). The paper argues that long-term fieldwork and close engagement with the subjects of peacebuilding must be required within any EPR agenda. The underappreciated benefits of such fieldwork are illustrated with examples from research in northern Sierra Leone.

KW - Peace Studies

KW - Peace Research

KW - Ethnography

KW - Fieldwork

KW - Methodology

UR - http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13533312.2017.1421860

U2 - 10.1080/13533312.2017.1421860

DO - 10.1080/13533312.2017.1421860

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 653

EP - 676

JO - International Peacekeeping

JF - International Peacekeeping

SN - 1353-3312

IS - 5

ER -