Proceed with Caution: Research Production and Uptake in Conflict-Affected Countries

Abstract

The effectiveness of (neo)liberal intervention in conflict zones remains ambiguous, with supportive and critical camps of scholars and practitioners embracing disparate viewpoints that are each propped up by rigorous empirical analysis. The consequences of this empirical ambiguity have deeply permeated international intervention organisations, who use these unsettled findings for decision- and policy-making. This article argues that the promotion of disparate intervention methodologies is entirely predictable given the existence of contested relationships between prominent underlying themes to the debates around peacebuilding and development intervention: globalisation, development aid, inequality, and poverty, and their roles in inciting or preventing violence. These contested relationships justify the cautious selection and interpretation of research findings by decision- and policy-makers. The concluding discussions explore the impact of biased research production and uptake processes that bolster self-interested intervention practices and outline several recommendations for better aligning evidence-based decision- and policy-making with the needs of conflict-affected populations.

Keywords:

• research methods
• intervention
• globalisation
• peacebuilding
• development
• inequality
• poverty
• violence
• social justice

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Gordon Crawford, Emdad Haque, Jessica Northey, and John Wiens for providing comments on drafts of this article. All mistakes, however, remain the sole responsibility of the authors.

Notes

1 We have purposely made a firm assertion of vested interests to clarify our argument, all the while recognising that some (especially smaller volunteer-based) organisations operate with a more robust sense of altruism. See also Thiessen (2013).

2 Some critical globalisation scholars object to restricting globalisation theory (conceptually and practically) to neoliberal ends and interpret globalisation discourses in alternative ways. See Antonio (2007), de Sousa Santos and Rodríguez-Garavito (2005), and Kiely (2005).

3 Compare with conflict analysis tools that embrace complexity such as the social cubism analytical model (Byrne & Carter 1996).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Chuck Thiessen

CHUCK THIESSEN is Research Fellow in Peacebuilding at the Centre for Trust, Peace and Social Relations at Coventry University. His current research interests include the ethics of international intervention in conflict zones. His most recent book is Conflict Transformation and the Palestinians: The Dynamics of Peace and Justice under Occupation (co-editor, Routledge, 2017).

Sean Byrne

SEAN BYRNE is Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies and Director of the Arthur Mauro Centre for Peace and Justice, St. Paul’s College at the University of Manitoba. He has published extensively in the areas of women, children, and peacebuilding; critical and emancipatory peacebuilding; ethnic conflict and international intervention; and social justice, economic development, and peacebuilding.