Comparing a Problem-Solving Workshop to a Conflict Assessment Framework: Conflict Analysis Versus Conflict Assessment in Practice

Abstract

The nexus between peacebuilding and development is widely acknowledged, and yet the two fields continue to operate differently in diagnosing destructive intergroup conflicts, as demonstrated by conflict analysis methods versus conflict assessment frameworks. This article juxtaposes conflict analysis, as illustrated by a problem- solving workshop on the Cyprus conflict, with a specialised conflict assessment workshop on an intergroup conflict in India. A comparative analysis based on participant observation in each workshop revealed basic similarities, but these were outweighed by important differences primarily related to differing assumptions about conflict causation (relationships versus structures). The implications for greater cross-fertilisation and the improvement of practice in both fields are identified.

Introduction

The nexus between peacebuilding and development has never been more salient as conflict resolution scholars and practitioners acknowledge the need for long-term structural development for the sustainability of peaceful societies, and more international development organisations are adding peacebuilding components to their programmes and mandates. Agreement is growing between the two fields that while only limited peace is possible without development, violent conflict also poses enormous risks to development projects. However, at the same time we see these fields acknowledging their interdependence, we also observe the tendency for each to attempt to navigate these new and complex waters on its own. The methods each field uses to analyse conflicts and their contexts illustrate the lack of discourse between conflict resolution and development scholars and practitioners even though they have similar interests and goals.

The methods each field uses to analyse conflicts and their contexts illustrate the lack of discourse between conflict resolution and development scholars and practitioners even though they have similar interests and goals.

Conflict analysis has been developed by conflict resolution scholars educated in conflict dynamics and processes, while conflict assessment – which generally places greater emphasis on context and less on conflict processes – has grown independently out of the practitioner world of humanitarian aid (relief and development). Problem-solving workshops (PSWs) illustrate one way that conflict analysis is applied in conflict resolution practice, while many international development agencies have developed conflict assessment frameworks (CAFs) to increase conflict sensitivity in their programming. As illustrated by these two practitioner tools, a number of important questions arise. What do conflict analysis and conflict assessment have in common? How are they different? In what ways can they learn from and add to each other, thus improving cooperation and coordination between peacebuilding and development? This article explores these questions through a comparison of a PSW on the conflict in Cyprus with the implementation in India of the CAF developed by World Vision, a large humanitarian organisation.

Conceptual Background

Conflict analysis

The conflict literature identifies several elements necessary for a valid and comprehensive conflict analysis: level, stage, context, issues, parties, dynamics and sources.

In terms of level, the analyst should determine whether the conflict is intra-personal, interpersonal, intra-group or intergroup (Neufeldt et al 2002). PSWs and CAFs are generally concerned with conflict at the intergroup level, often in an international context.

A conflict stage typology typically proceeds from latent or potential conflict to confrontation, to escalation, to de-escalation and to resolution or termination. If a settlement addresses the structural violence and injustice that gave rise to the conflict, there is potential for reconciliation; however, if it fails to do so, the de-escalation stage can be synonymous with the latent conflict stage and continue the cycle (Neufeldt et al 2002). A number of theorists have further described stages within the escalation phase itself, including Fisher (2007), who outlines four stages of conflict escalation: discussion, polarisation, segregation and destruction. Each stage differs in terms of the parties' perceptions of each other and their relationship, the communication and interaction between them, the predominant issues, the expected outcomes and the approaches to conflict management.

Analysis of the conflict's context begins with the historical, political, economic and socio-cultural aspects of the conflict. Analysis at the state, regional and global levels is also helpful as appropriate (Ramsbotham et al 2005; Wehr 1979).

Analysis of the conflict issues involves identifying the nature of the incompatibilities between the parties. Wehr (1979) suggests issues can be facts-based (disagreement over what is), values-based (disagreement over what should be), interests-based (disagreement over who will get what) or non-realistic (originating in interaction, communication or discomfort). Sandole (2008) also recommends analysis on the basis of whether issues are structural (concerned with a change in systems), realistic (tangible), displaced (a safer issue, but not the ‘real’ problem) or misattributed (invention of an enemy where none exists).

Analysis of conflict parties involves identifying the primary, secondary and interested third parties and outlining their characteristics (Wehr 1979). What are the parties' approaches to conflict (confront, accommodate, avoid, compromise or collaborate)? What are their conflict-handling orientations (competitive or cooperative)? Kriesberg (2007) further suggests analysing parties based on their self-other conceptions, boundary clarity between them and degree of internal differentiation. Relationship questions also arise. What is the level of integration and engagement of the parties (Kriesberg 2007)? What are the power dynamics and the power balance between the parties (Rouhana & Korper 1997)? It is useful to express relationships in a drawing that maps cleavages and alliances, formal and informal relationships and the relative power of different actors (Neufeldt et al 2002). The analyst should then link parties to the issues, distinguishing between the goals, positions and underlying interests and needs of each one (Ramsbotham et al 2005).

Conflict dynamics help explain interaction and escalation through elements such as attitudes, behaviours, polarisation, spiralling, stereotyping and mirror-imaging (Ramsbotham et al 2005; Wehr 1979). As conflict escalates, parties tend to have increased sensitivity to differences and threats, a minimised sense of similarities, and suspicious and hostile attitudes. These dynamics encourage rigidity in positions, miscommunication and misinterpretation that complicate what might appear to be relatively simple substantive issues (Pearson d'Estree 2008).

Conflict sources are multiple, complex and disputed by scholars, and therefore must be analysed through a variety of lenses. A simple typology offered by Fisher (2006), drawing on the work of Daniel Katz and John Burton, identifies four primary areas of difference: economic, values, power and basic human needs. Rubenstein (2008) identifies three social sources of destructive conflicts: socioeconomic transformation that generates class conflict, political transformation that generates identity-group conflict and cultural transformation that generates worldview conflict.

Problem-solving workshops

The development of the PSW as a method of practice can be traced to a workshop designed by John Burton and his colleagues in December 1965 that addressed a conflict involving Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. Burton's ‘controlled communication’ approach brings together high-level representatives from groups or states involved in violent conflict for informal discussions facilitated by a third party panel of social scientists (Burton 1969). Another early contributor to the development of the PSW, Herbert Kelman, took a similar informal, small group, analytical approach to conflict resolution. Kelman's ‘interactive problem-solving’, applied most notably to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has significantly shaped the norms of theory and practice of PSWs (Fisher 1997; Kelman 1979).

What distinguishes the PSW from more traditional conflict management methods of official diplomacy, including negotiation and mediation, are its emphasis on exploring the underlying needs and fears of the parties, its emphasis on addressing poor relationships between parties, its assertion that conflict can only be resolved through mutually acceptable solutions, and its unofficial, small group discussion nature. Characteristics of PSWs are: representatives of the parties involved in conflict must interact face to face; the forum for discussion about the conflict is informal, off the record and low-risk; facilitation is provided by a skilled and knowledgeable third party; and objectives include attitude change, the generation of innovative solutions and improvement in intergroup relationships (Fisher 1972).

The initial rationale behind the PSW was to provide an alternative but complementary form of interaction to official peace processes that focus on agreements and their implementation (Fisher 2005). It is assumed that improvement in the relationship between the parties will help facilitate resolution of the objective elements of the conflict. The goal, therefore, is to provide an environment for positive interaction between unofficial representatives of antagonistic parties that enables attitude change and creative problem solving, which can then be fed back into official processes and contribute to de-escalation and resolution of the conflict (Fisher 1997).

PSWs take an analytical, task-orientated approach (Burton & Dukes 1990; Kelman & Cohen 1976) that contrasts with the adversarial approach of traditional negotiation and mediation. The focus is on the underlying causes of conflict rather than the settlement of specific disputes (Fisher 1997), while the norms of the workshop require that participants engage in honest dialogue characterised by listening and seeking to understand the other (Saunders 2000). Kelman (2008) identifies three ground rules for the PSW: privacy and confidentiality of the proceedings; no expectation that an agreement will be reached; and equality of the parties in the interaction. Participants in a PSW come as private individuals rather than official representatives, but they must be influential in the context, having some connection to the policy-making process (Kelman & Cohen 1976).

PSWs are facilitated by third party teams of social scientists with knowledge of conflict dynamics and social processes (Burton & Dukes 1990). The third party consultant's role is not to propose solutions or employ leverage, but to facilitate analysis of the conflict and the creation of possible solutions by inducing motivation for problem solving, improving communication between the parties, assisting in the diagnosis of the conflict and regulating the interaction between parties (Fisher 1972). The third party intervenes in the workshop in three ways: offering theoretical inputs about conflict theory; providing content observations about what is being said; and presenting process observations about the parties' interactions (Kelman & Cohen 1976). This emphasis on the subjective elements – perceptions, attitudes, feelings, trust, commitment, communication and orientations – distinguishes third party consultation from mediation, while the diagnostic role – providing concepts, insights, models and cases from conflict theory – distinguishes consultation from dialogue or pure facilitation (Fisher 1997). The approach is based on the assumption that improvement in subjective conflict elements will facilitate a more collaborative approach to dealing with the objective side, and therefore those who study conflict have something more to offer in the PSW setting than facilitation skills alone.

Most workshops take place over three to five days, and although the agenda is not fixed, a general procedure has emerged. Rouhana (1995) distinguishes the PSW as an ‘intervention model’ – different from a natural group development model in that while the third party is sensitive to natural group dynamics, it does not allow the group to independently determine the direction and sequence of discussion. Rather, the third party leads participants through a sequence of steps, using the development of group dynamics as a guide in determining the timing of transitioning from one phase to another.

Workshops usually begin with the participants sharing views and experiences of the conflict. In this analytical phase, parties identify central concerns, including those of the other. Rouhana (1995) calls this phase ‘cognitive empathy’ – the process by which each party moves from expression of its own needs to comprehension of the needs of the other. Rouhana's second phase, ‘responsivity to the other's needs’, involves each party seeking reassurance that the other party is not only aware of its needs, but recognises its legitimacy and will consider it when developing solutions. The third phase of ‘joint thinking’ is a marked shift as participants move from shared understanding to thinking together about mutually acceptable solutions. Participants discuss the obstacles to moving toward the solutions created and attempt to understand the constraints of both sides. In this phase, participants establish a new group identity and mode of interaction that has potential for creating ideas that can contribute to resolution. In the fourth and final phase of ‘working together’, the group considers how to implement its ideas, thinking about how to overcome the obstacles to possible solutions and the constraints on each side. Participants can proceed through these phases in a single workshop or in the course of several meetings, with the third party having the difficult task of determining when participants are ready to move from one phase to the next. Rouhana also acknowledges that these phases are not entirely linear, as there is usually some cycling within a workshop or even a phase.

Conflict assessment frameworks

In contrast to PSWs, CAFs have grown out of the practitioner world of international relief and development, and approach conflict contexts from a completely different perspective. As stated in a report from the World Bank: ‘As used by most development agencies, conflict analysis is not an instrument for resolving conflict but to contribute to effective development processes’ (Sardesai & Wam 2006: 1).

The purpose of conflict assessment for relief and development agencies is to contribute to conflict sensitivity, which is defined by International Alert and SaferWorld as the ability of an organisation to

understand the context in which [it] operate[s]; understand the interaction between [its] intervention and the context; and act upon the understanding of this interaction, in order to avoid negative impacts and maximise positive impacts (IA/SW 2004: 1).

The need for conflict sensitivity in development assistance and humanitarian aid is described in Mary B. Anderson's landmark work Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace – or War (1999), which illustrates how even the best-intentioned assistance, when lacking conflict sensitivity, can inadvertently exacerbate conflict and suffering, thus doing more harm than good. Anderson's work has fundamentally changed the relief and development field through the mainstreaming of conflict-sensitive programming.

Conflict assessment is operationalised through a variety of frameworks that guide analysts through exploration of specific elements of the conflict context. Though Anderson's Do No Harm/Local Capacities for Peace (DNH/LCP) framework enjoys widespread use for assessment at the project (micro) level, many organisations have developed their own CAFs for the national (macro) level analysis. Examples are the United States Department of State's Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilisation, the UK Department for International Development, the Forum for Early Warning and Early Response & the West Africa Network for Peacebuilding, Germany's Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency's Division for Peace and Security, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the U.S. Agency for International Development's Conflict Management and Mitigation Unit, Clingendael Institute's Conflict Research Unit in the Netherlands, the World Bank and World Vision.

CAFs have sprung not out of the conflict literature, but from the Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment model of Kenneth Bush of Canada's International Development Research Centre (Bush 1998) and from the DNH/LCP project of the Collaborative for Development Action. In fact, the literature on conflict analysis and conflict assessment is sharply divided between academic and practitioner literature. There is a plethora of journal articles and books written by conflict resolution scholars on conflict analysis, yet there is essentially no academic literature that addresses or evaluates the CAFs developed by international development organisations across the globe. Two exceptions are an article published in Conflict, Security and Development (Buckley-Zistel 2003) and a paper presented at the 2009 International Studies Association annual convention (Izzi & Kurz 2009). The articles on conflict assessment on the Beyond Intractability website (Shmeuli 2003) might be viewed as a hybrid of scholar/practitioner literature, although they do not address CAFs specifically.

In contrast, there is the practitioner-driven literature on CAFs and conflict-sensitive approaches to relief and development, which is found largely in the publications and reports of international development organisations and research centres (see, for example, Barbolet et al 2005; Gunduz & Klein 2008; Lange 2004; Leonhardt 2003). Observing this division in the literature, one wonders whether CAF practitioners have read the conflict analysis literature, how deeply CAFs integrate conflict analysis theory into their design and how aware conflict resolution scholars and practitioners are of the extensive conflict assessment being done in the field of development.

World Vision's CAF: making sense of turbulent contexts

The development of World Vision's conflict assessment framework, Making Sense of Turbulent Contexts (MSTC), began in 2000 when senior management responded to the organisation's need for more sophisticated tools to assist staff in analysing and understanding the national and regional contexts in which they worked. A project to develop such tools led to the CAF now known as the MSTC Analysis Cycle (Figure 1). The purposes of MSTC analysis are to ensure that World Vision staff are more conflict-sensitive, that World Vision programming considers conflict dynamics and that staff have the ability to analyse the contexts of ongoing political and economic instability in which they work (Scott 2009).

Figure 1 The MSTC Analysis Cycle. Source: World Vision International 2007.

Consistent with many other organisations' CAFs, the MSTC Analysis Cycle consists of several tools, called modules, which together provide a framework for examining a particular unstable context and strategising for the future. The first five tools look at the current situation and identify past events and triggers that have contributed to the present turbulence. Then a relationship map is constructed that gives a moment-in-time snapshot of the current situation. The map indicates the relative power of the actor groups in terms of their influence on instability and identifies conflict, alliances and formal and informal relationships between actors. Based on this analysis of the past and present, the MSTC Analysis Cycle turns toward the future with the final three tools intended to forecast likely events that will have a high impact on the context and identify strategic needs and operational implications for the organisation.

While the MSTC Analysis Cycle is similar to many other CAFs in terms of the content of assessment, it is a unique one in terms of implementation. While many CAFs rely on more traditional methods like desk research and consultancies, World Vision uses workshops in which a team of three to four facilitators guides 25 participants comprised of World Vision staff and staff from other organisations through the Analysis Cycle. MSTC facilitators are chosen for their demonstrated understanding of protracted violent conflict, skill in facilitating adult education across cultures and learning styles and ability to manage workshop planning and logistics. When possible, facilitators are chosen from the country or region where the conflict assessment takes place. They are encouraged to be aware of their biases and refrain from sharing their own perspectives, intervening by posing questions rather than offering prescriptive advice (Lowrey & Scott 2010).

The implementation of MSTC analysis is unique in that it is participatory and interactive, and it uses local knowledge as the primary resource for analysis. These characteristics, though they distinguish the MSTC from other CAFs, also make the MSTC more similar to the PSW than other CAFs. This convergence thus offers an opportunity to compare conflict analysis as applied through the PSW to conflict assessment as applied through the MSTC.

Case Description and Analysis

Research design

In order to examine this convergence between the MSTC and PSWs, a comparative case analysis focused on a MSTC workshop on the Maoist insurgency in Jharkhand and Bihar states held in India and a PSW on the Cyprus conflict held in the United States. Through participant observation by the first author of the workshop activities, participant interactions and third party techniques, the workshops were compared across several key variables to identify similarities and differences between conflict assessment and conflict analysis, and to identify the potential contributions each could make to the other.

To analyse the information recorded in field notes, the comparison relied on Fisher's framework for analysing the nature of a conflict intervention (Fisher 2005), which identifies nine variables deduced from his model of third party consultation. The two workshops were also compared across three additional variables deemed to be important: theoretical assumptions about conflict sources, type of conflict and proclivity of the participants. These results are presented in Table 1 following a description of the two workshops.

Table 1 Comparison of Cyprus Problem-solving Workshop and India: Making Sense of Turbulent Contexts.

Variables		Cyprus: Problem-solving Workshop	India: Making Sense of Turbulent Contexts
Participants	Number per party	- Seven total participants - Three Greek-Cypriot - Four Turkish-Cypriot	- 18 total participants - Conflict parties not clearly identifiable - Participants not chosen according to conflict party identity - Participants not identified during workshop as representatives of conflict parties, but as ‘internal’ (World Vision employee) and ‘external’ (non-WV employee)
	Identity	- Clearly linked to specific ethnic group - All supported bi-communal peacebuilding, negotiations - Represented diversity of respective collectivities in gender, professional backgrounds	- Not linked to specific ethnic/cultural group - Diversity in age, geographic location, political views - Lacked diversity in gender, professional backgrounds, religious affiliation
	Connections	- NGOs, academia, media, business leaders, high levels of government - ‘Influential’	- Strong connection to decision makers within own organisations - Not ‘influential’ in terms of connections to political leadership
Meetings	Number	Stand-alone workshop	Stand-alone workshop
	Duration	Four days	Three-and-a-half days
	Frequency	Not applicable	Not applicable
Setting	Neutrality	Neutral (retreat centre)	Neutral (hotel conference room)
	Informality	- Relaxed, informal, off the record - Academic seminar discussion environment - Comfortable, yet professional - Free of extraneous materials	- Relaxed, much more informal, off the record - Interactive classroom/training environment - Activities, colourful materials, group work, visual aids, humorous ‘energisers’
	Seclusion	- Very secluded - Removed from conflict context (from Cyprus to the U.S.) - Retreat centre itself in secluded area, removed from hotel accommodation	- Not secluded at all - Workshop held in state capital, in midst of conflict - Many participants commuted from home to hotel each day - Bandh (general strike) prevented several participants from attending
Agenda/topics		- Analysis of current situation - Strategy development - Highly flexible agenda - Participants had significant control of agenda and topics - No framework for analysis - Free-flowing, unstructured discussion - Highly malleable schedule	- Analysis of current situation - Strategy development - Fixed agenda, little flexibility - Participants had almost no control of agenda or topics - Third party highly directive of agenda - Highly structured agenda – framework for analysis - Specific activities & exercises with precise instructions - Strict adherence to schedule
Third party team	Number	Six members: three facilitators; three observers/assistants	Five members: three facilitators; two assistants
	Identity (facilitators)	- Male - University professors of peace & conflict resolution - One Greek-Cypriot, two North Americans	- Male - WV employees, practitioners of relief, development, advocacy and/or peacebuilding - One North American, two Indians
	Knowledge (facilitators)	- Conflict resolution scholars - General conflict theory & dynamics knowledge - Specific conflict knowledge	- Lead facilitator had general conflict process knowledge - Two co-facilitators more knowledgeable about specific conflict - International development process expertise
	Skills (facilitators)	- Experienced PSW facilitators, conflict resolution trainers, adult educators - Empathic listening, capacity to manage intergroup interactions, ability to paraphrase, summarise, synthesise themes	- Lead facilitator experienced in MSTC facilitation, acumen about group dynamics, capacity to manage intergroup interactions, ability to elicit viewpoints from all participants - Co-facilitators experienced in facilitating adult education processes, but not MSTC, less capacity to manage intergroup interactions and elicit multiple viewpoints

Cyprus PSW

The Cyprus PSW was held from 1–4 December 2009 at the George Mason University Point of View retreat and conference centre in Mason Neck, Virginia, just south of Washington, DC. The purpose was to analyse the current situation in Cyprus and discuss strategies for supporting the peace process and concurrent negotiations between political leaders. Faculty and graduate assistants from George Mason University, Portland State University and American University comprised the six-person third party team for the workshop, which brought together a small group of peacebuilders from the two communities on the island of Cyprus. The four Turkish Cypriot and three Greek Cypriot participants spent the first half of the workshop diagnosing the current situation vis-à-vis negotiations and analysing forces supporting and resisting the peace process. The second half of the workshop shifted toward the development of strategies for supporting negotiations given the previous analysis. The workshop was conducted in English and all discussions were held in plenary except for the first half of day four, which involved some group work to synthesise themes from the previous days. At the last afternoon session, representatives of local NGOs, the UNDP, and the European Union heard reports from participants on the main outcomes and policy implications of the workshop.

India MSTC

The India MSTC was held from 8–11 February 2010 at a hotel in Ranchi, the capital of Jharkhand state. The purpose was to analyse current instability in the Indian states of Jharkhand and Bihar – specifically turbulence caused by a local Maoist (Naxalite) insurgency – and to discuss the implications of this analysis for World Vision's programming in the two states. The facilitation team consisted of a lead facilitator, two co-facilitators and two documenters, staff from World Vision International's peacebuilding team and World Vision India. The workshop brought together 18 participants involved in civil society organisations (CSOs) mostly in Jharkhand state. Thirteen of the participants were World Vision India staff members, while the other five represented local CSOs working in the two states. In the course of the three-and-a-half days, participants worked through each of the modules in the MSTC Analysis Cycle, beginning with analysis of the past and current situation and ending with strategic and operational implications. The workshop was held in English and included a significant amount of small group activities (often conducted in Hindi) with discussions of group work held in plenary.

Discussion and Conclusion

Summary of outcomes

While the two workshops shared some areas of similarity – duration, broad agenda and third party teams of similar size, skills, knowledge and functions – the differences outweigh the commonalities. The India MSTC and Cyprus PSW varied widely in the number, influence and diversity of participants, the degree of seclusion and the roles of third party teams. Though they shared a broad workshop methodology, it is clear that the MSTC is not a type of PSW, but rather that each illustrates its respective field of practice, i.e., conflict assessment versus conflict analysis.

While the two workshops shared some areas of similarity – duration, broad agenda and third party teams of similar size, skills, knowledge and functions – the differences outweigh the commonalities

The workshops' different approaches stem first from differing assumptions about the sources of conflict. PSWs are predicated on the perspective that at the epicentre of intergroup conflicts are destructive relationships and interactions that have exacerbated objective differences. They seek the resolution of conflict primarily through improvements in intergroup attitudes and relationships. The MSTC, on the other hand, was clearly shaped by the assumption that destructive structures are the primary source of conflict, due in no small part to the fact that World Vision's mandate gives it a focus on changing and developing systems, not relationships. This assumption seems to be shared among international development organisations, which explains the limited attention CAFs tend to give to conflict dynamics such as spiralling, stereotyping and mirror imaging and actor characteristics such as needs, fears, and constraints. This is understandable since these organisations have limited capacity to address relationship dynamics through traditional development programming. PSW facilitators and participants, conversely, tend not to have the mandate or resources to practicably address macro-level structural issues contributing to conflict.

These assumptions might also explain the differences in the identity, diversity and proclivities of the participants in the two workshops. The participants in the Cyprus PSW were chosen according to their social identities clearly linked to conflict party (Turkish Cypriot or Greek Cypriot). India MSTC participants were not clearly linked to conflict party (Maoist or non-Maoist sympathisers) and lacked diversity in key areas of religion and gender. However, this divergence is not surprising given that the MSTC is built upon the presupposition that structures are a more significant source of conflict. MSTC practitioners – and CAF practitioners generally – would be less likely to use conflict assessment as a method for improving intergroup relationships than PSW practitioners. As for proclivities, although the PSW calls for ongoing analysis and the MSTC emphasises structures and strategies, the preference for diagnosis versus strategy development could be due to cultural or organisational differences between the two groups of participants.

The differences in the two cases, however, also illuminate areas of potential cross-fertilisation – where conflict analysis as practised in the field of conflict resolution can add to conflict assessment as practised in the field of international development, and vice versa. The findings offer the fields a chance to learn ways from one another to improve their practice without changing their basic objectives. It is also helpful to note ways in which the MSTC, as a unique CAF, can add to the practice of conflict assessment.

The findings offer the fields a chance to learn ways from one another to improve their practice without changing their basic objectives

Lessons for organisations using CAFs

CAF practitioners can learn from the MSTC, first, by using participatory and interactive processes that rely on local knowledge as the primary resource for conflict assessment. When faced with limited time and resources, desk research is often the quickest and cheapest way to perform conflict assessment. However, there are substantial benefits from participatory processes, both for the quality of analysis and the potential to contribute to resolution (Barbolet et al 2005; Gunduz & Klein 2008; Izzi & Kurz 2009). It is also more likely that recommendations will be implemented if local partners are involved in the assessment and formulation of strategies. While interviews and field research are a step up from desk research, the MSTC workshop model offers an interactive conflict assessment process that brings participants from different domains of the conflict together with clear benefits.

Furthermore, conflict assessment practitioners can learn from conflict analysis as in the PSW by incorporating conflict resolution theory that sees destructive relationships as a primary source of escalated conflict. This has two implications: augmenting CAFs to include more in-depth analysis of conflict dynamics and the characteristics of relationships between parties; and broadening the diversity of participants in CAF activities, particularly in terms of gender, religious affiliation and the social identities most relevant to the conflict (ethnic group, class, political party etc.). Simply by providing a space for conflict parties to engage each other and cooperate, conflict assessment activities might be able to contribute to what Lederach calls a ‘transformative platform’ (Lederach 2003) – a process-structure that provides space for ongoing and engaged interaction between parties in conflict. If international development organisations are going to perform conflict assessments, does it not make sense to implement them in a way that has greater potential to positively transform the conflict itself? It seems that humanitarian organisations often seek to address the need for programmes that address relationships by adding discrete ‘peacebuilding’ programmes and activities to their repertoires. However, as articulated in a report by International Alert (Lange & Quinn 2003), humanitarian agencies could go beyond ‘do no harm’ to actually ‘doing good’ in conflict contexts by integrating conflict sensitivity into existing programmes and activities (including CAFs) rather than by creating stand-alone peacebuilding programmes.

CAF practitioners can also learn from the PSW method the value of a third party team with a thorough knowledge of conflict causation and dynamics. A deeper level of engagement with the field of conflict resolution and conflict analysis literature would be helpful for those who perform conflict assessments. Greater knowledge of group processes and conflict resolution methods would also aid assessors in dealing with tensions that inevitably arise between members of conflict parties in interactive settings. While training international humanitarian workers on conflict issues is beneficial, relief and development organisations can also take advantage of the growing number of trained professionals in peace and conflict studies. Peacebuilding professionals with conflict resolution training should be integrated into the staff of humanitarian organisations working in conflict-affected countries. Acknowledging conflict resolution training as a needed technical skill in the field of international development would be more effective than creating stand-alone ‘peacebuilding’ programmes with conventionally trained staff.

Lessons for conflict analysis practitioners

Those who perform conflict analysis, as part of PSWs or otherwise, also have much to learn from the ways conflict assessment is being integrated into international development programming. The MSTC and CAFs illustrate the value of using a systematic framework for conflict analysis. The conflict literature contains few concrete guidelines for questions to ask when analysing a conflict. While flexibility has advantages, a systematic framework forces analysts to examine elements of a conflict they might not typically think through on their own. Asking specific questions and intentionally working through specific aspects of a conflict enhance the thoroughness of analysis and provide needed direction for participants. Working through a predetermined set of questions or modules could help ensure that the conflict is seen through a variety of lenses and thus illuminate important dynamics. The MSTC workshop model also illustrates how highly directive facilitators and highly structured activities can lead to greater efficiency and productivity in a workshop. The specific instructions given at the India MSTC were effective in keeping participants on task, and producing large amounts of detailed analysis in a short time. The less structured Cyprus PSW agenda, on the other hand – which gave participants latitude to determine topics for analysis – allowed for unfocused discussions, frequent recycling of topics and formulation of nascent ideas that were often not brought to completion. With the plethora of CAFs available, it makes sense for conflict analysts to employ them when performing analysis themselves and especially when facilitating analysis among untrained participants.

Conflict analysts can also learn from CAFs the benefit of performing analysis when it comes to translating the analysis into concrete strategies for peacebuilding. Even the most accurate and thorough analysis is useless if it sits on a shelf collecting dust and is never used to inform interventions to transform the conflict. Institutionalisation is one of the greatest current challenges in the field of conflict resolution and for PSWs more specifically, and the MSTC workshop illustrates how more effective it is to develop strategies when the assessment activity is sponsored by an organisation with the mandate and resources to implement them. In the Cyprus PSW, participants spent a half a day longer in the diagnostic phase than planned, and once the group did move into strategy development, discussion repeatedly recycled to analysis, so that the third party was forced to redirect participants back to strategies. In the India MSTC, participants displayed exactly the opposite affinity. They were immediately and primarily concerned with understanding how the analysis would be relevant for their work and brought up questions about strategies throughout the workshop. Facilitators had to repeatedly restrain participants from strategising too early and assure them that the analysis would be worthwhile. When the time came to develop operational implications on the last day, participants engaged the module with enthusiasm and developed several detailed plans for moving forward. These divergent proclivities likely stem from the different levels of institutionalisation of the conflict analysis/assessment activities. Participants in the Cyprus PSW came to the workshop as individuals from different sectors of society with their own jobs and ongoing projects; they had to leave their work and commitments at home in order to participate. Additionally, the workshop itself had no mandate or funding to implement the strategies it developed. India MSTC participants, on the other hand, came to the workshop as part of their jobs and their supervisor was present. With the exception of five external participants, all came from the same organisation, which had a mandate and funding to implement the strategies developed at the workshop, providing clear incentives to focus on strategies. While conflict analysis is often performed in an ad hoc manner and often associated with academia in the field of conflict resolution, greater institutionalisation of the field would provide for more systematic performance of conflict analysis and its utilisation to inform strategies.

The comparative case analysis reveals the potential for cross-fertilisation between the two fields of peacebuilding and development through greater engagement among practitioners of conflict analysis and conflict assessment. As the nexus between peacebuilding and development becomes clearer, practitioners in the two fields can no longer afford to work in isolation. Rather, consideration of how these methods can add to each other will constructively enlarge the discussion and improve practice in both fields.

The comparative case analysis reveals the potential for cross-fertilisation between the two fields of peacebuilding and development through greater engagement among practitioners of conflict analysis and conflict assessment

Notes

^*The authors thank the organisers, facilitators and participants in the Cyprus problem-solving workshop and the World Vision Making Sense of Turbulent Contexts workshop for giving their permission for the observation of the workshops and their willingness to discuss various aspects of the workshops with the first author.