Decentring the intervention experts: Ethnographic peace research and policy engagement
| Author | Gearoid Millar |
| DOI | 10.1177/0010836718768631 |
| Published date | 01 June 2018 |
| Date | 01 June 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836718768631
Cooperation and Conflict
2018, Vol. 53(2) 259 –276
© The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0010836718768631
journals.sagepub.com/home/cac
Decentring the intervention
experts: Ethnographic
peace research and policy
engagement
Gearoid Millar
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 article, therefore, proposes
an Ethnographic Peace Research (EPR) agenda that would provide access for and influence to the
‘peace kept’ and decentre 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 that
can enhance its relevance for policy, serve to decentre the intervention experts and develop a
credible alternative bottom-up approach to policymaking in post-conflict states.
Keywords
Bottom-up, ethnography, evaluation, methodology, peace research, peacebuilding policy
Introduction
Academics studying post-conflict interventions are under substantial pressure to make
their research and findings pertinent to policymakers and practitioners. They are encour-
aged to add recommendations to articles, to incorporate stakeholders into new research
projects and to develop ‘pathways to impact’ via policy reports and practitioner
workshops. However, while well intended, decades of research regarding ‘knowledge
Corresponding author:
Gearoid Millar, Institute for Conflict, Transition, and Peace Research, School of Social Science, Department
of Sociology, Edward Wright Building, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB24 3QY, UK.
Email: g.millar@abdn.ac.uk
768631CAC0010.1177/0010836718768631Cooperation and ConflictMillar
research-article2018
Article
260 Cooperation and Conflict 53(2)
utilization’ theory and dynamics indicates that the direct transfer of academic knowledge
to policy has actually been quite limited. There are a number of reasons for this, includ-
ing the failure of academics to communicate clearly to non-academic audiences, the
ideological biases of policymakers and the need among policymakers to simplify com-
plexity. These findings must be acknowledged by any academics hoping to influence
policy. Indeed, in peace, security and development studies, where the international and
cross-cultural dimensions inherently imply additional complexity, such barriers are even
more concerning.
As a result, scholars hoping to impact policy must (a) understand the limitations of
knowledge transfer as discussed in the existing ‘knowledge utilization’ literature, (b)
develop methodologies to collect data and provide insight to overcome those limitations
and (c) actively communicate their findings to policy and practitioner communities to
maximize the impact of their findings. While the third of these (engagement with policy-
makers) is becoming more common, the success of communication is reliant on the first
two being achieved, and this is where academia has fallen short. Indeed, academics stud-
ying post-conflict interventions are largely unaware of the knowledge utilization litera-
ture, have little understanding of what these barriers may be and so do not usually
consider the strengths of their research approaches to overcome them. This article, there-
fore, accomplishes the first task (a) and proposes an Ethnographic Peace Research (EPR)
approach that might accomplish the second (b).
The remainder of this article is divided into four sections. The first introduces both the
dominant mode of peace interventions in the post-Cold War period and the prominent
critiques that have led to recent calls for more grounded or ethnographic research in post-
conflict contexts. The second reviews the knowledge utilization literature, focusing spe-
cifically on the many barriers to knowledge transfer identified by scholars in the fields of
international peace, security and development. The third introduces the EPR approach
and describes, with reference to a variety of studies, why this approach is particularly
suited to overcome many of the recognized barriers to knowledge utilization. The con-
cluding section summarizes the argument and reflects on the challenges to an EPR
agenda and its potential impact on policy. While EPR is not a panacea, this article argues
that it is certainly among the best options for decentring the intervention experts in post-
conflict policy.
Liberal peace and its current critiques
In the post-Cold War period, ever more supranational, national and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) have committed time, resources and manpower to building the
‘liberal peace’ based on the three pillars of democracy, free markets and the rule of law
(Doyle, 2005). This model is related to the long established ‘Wilsonian’ liberal peace
(Paris, 2004: 6), which was originally theorized as a mechanism ensuring stability
between interdependent states (Helbich, 1967–1968), but which, in the post-Cold War
period, also became the primary means of ensuring domestic peace within post-conflict
states. As such, it is an extension of the Western derived norms of governmentality and
authority evident in theories such as the ‘democratic peace’ (Russet, 1994), but applied
in a diverse array of contexts around the world. In the post-Cold War period this ‘liberal
To continue reading
Request your trial