This article was downloaded by: [Florida International University]On: 20 December 2014, At: 12:40Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

International PeacekeepingPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/finp20

Collaborative actionresearch and peacebuildingJohn Carlarne aa Researcher for the Plymouth PeacebuildingProject , University of Plymouth ,Published online: 08 Nov 2007.

To cite this article: John Carlarne (1997) Collaborative action researchand peacebuilding, International Peacekeeping, 4:4, 79-85, DOI:10.1080/13533319708413693

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13533319708413693

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities

whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Inte

rnat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:40

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Collaborative Action Research andPeacebuilding

JOHN CARLARNE

As has been frequently observed about the external assistance to war-torn societies byinternational agencies and non-governmental organizations, external research on thesesocieties tends to be driven by externally-derived agendas. Building on the concept ofparticipative action research, in which external agents engage with internalcommunities, this article develops the concept of collaborative action research. It is anew approach to research that locates collaboration by outsiders with local researchcollaborators in an equal partnership. Indeed it is designed to reinforce local capacitiesfor academic research, on the basis of regenerating normal international academicinterchange. It is here explored in relation to a methodology for evaluating the impactof external agents on war-torn communities.

Collaborative action research (CAR) is being developed as a way ofincluding all the beneficial elements of participative action research withina methodology that is specifically tailored for research during what iswidely seen as post-conflict regeneration. The methodology is beingdeveloped initially for work on the evaluation of peacebuilding withinBosnia and Croatia. This article gives a brief insight into the backgroundand rationale for this methodology, which at the time of writing is in itsformative stages of development. Indeed, this should be regarded as a noteon research in progress.

In broad and simple terms CAR is denoted by a process of collaborativeresearch on issues of mutual interest to academics and researchers fromwithin and beyond societies viewed as engaged in post-conflictregeneration. CAR follows the premise that collaborative research betweenacademics from different countries is an ordinary facet of academic life.Collaborative action research is not, therefore, a form of intervention orassistance, and is little influenced by developmentalist approaches. It is amethod of ordinary collaboration for the conduct of research into post-conflict regeneration. Thus it seeks to avoid association with 'assistance',but regards universal academic collaboration as something that should beindependent of such issues.

John Carlame is a researcher for the Plymouth Peacebuilding Project at the University ofPlymouth.

International Peacekeeping, Vol.4, No.4, Winter 1997, pp.79-85PUBLISHED BY FRANK CASS, LONDON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Inte

rnat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:40

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

80 INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING

Because CAR seeks to counter some of the negative outcomes of the'external' research agenda - such as a donor-driven, externally-mediatedassessment of peacebuilding intervention - it tends generally to focus on theevaluation of externally-derived peacebuilding efforts.1 This subject matteris also chosen because: (a) this activity has real concrete implications foracademic institutions in countries seen as undergoing post-conflictregeneration as well as those from countries that are not; and (b) post-conflict regeneration is currently an area of key interest in the wideracademic community, with attendant opportunities for funding andpublication.

Roots

As noted above, CAR owes a good deal to participative action research.Participative action research has been developed by Marie Smyth and RuthMoore for their work on sectarianism in Ulster. This can be characterized asan engagement with local communities where: 'Research is an exchangebetween the researcher and the researched in which both roles are crucialand equally valuable.'2 Their work seeks to overcome the three mainfractures of gender, class and colonialism, which are individually associatedwith 'a universal organising principle - in turn, sexism, class division, andracism and sectarianism.'3 Here we only have space to consider theircritique of 'colonialism'.Smyth and Moore schematize the relationship between a species ofcolonialism in the 'academic' and 'real worlds' in accordance with FigureI.4 It is important to note that they use the terms 'colonial', 'civilizing' and'native' to magnify problems in the existing discourse and are not used tosuggest approval.5

Although their work in Ulster is in many ways different to the situationin other societies that are perceived to be engaged in post-conflicttransformation, it does not take much imagination to recognize somesimilarities between Smyth and Moore's observations and those relating toexternal evaluation of situations in other countries such as Croatia andBosnia-Herzegovina where, at least in academic terms, research into theactivities of outside intervenors might follow a similar if more dilutedformula. Indeed, one might better describe the situation surrounding theevaluation of peacebuilding interventions as being one of hegemoniccontrol. This is not to deny that a great deal of excellent work is beingconducted by academics from within countries engaged in regeneration. Onthe contrary highly valuable work is being carried out.6 But, rather, it seemsto be the case that this is generally insufficiently digested by externalintervenors. If we were to broadly sketch the 'external' evaluation process

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Inte

rnat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:40

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

COLLABORATIVE ACTION RESEARCH AND PEACEBUILDING 81

FIGURE 1COLONIALISM, RACE AND SECTARIANISM

Academic World

Exclusion of natives from academic life

Must learn the rules of the colonizerbefore they are admitted

Real World

Exclusion of natives from politicalpower

Silencing opposition

'Civilizing' project

Yardstick/norm is the 'maintained'

Colonial is the ultimate authority

Exclusion or marginalization of anti-colonial accounts (sometimes by associationwith native savagery)

Mirror (reflects and reifies)

Amplification of native violence(native savagery)

FIGURE 2

EVALUATION AS HEGEMONIC ASSESSMENT

Evaluation Practices

Exclusion of'beneficiaries' from academicdiscourse (other than by hiring)

Must learn the discourse boundaries of theintervenors before they are admitted

Intervenors'Bureaucratic Discourse

Exclusion of 'beneficiaries' fromkey process

Silencing opposition

'Developing' project

Yardstick/norm is the 'West'

Intervenors is the ultimate authority

Exclusion or marginalization of anti-intervenor accounts (sometimes by associationwith beneficiary's 'bias')

Mirror (reflects uiul reifies)

Amplification of beneficiaryviolence and helplessness(beneficiary weakness and the needfor intervention)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Inte

rnat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:40

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

82 INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING

of peacebuilding efforts we might come up with a scheme as in Figure 2.Note that although we would use the term 'locals' or 'recipients' to describethose on the 'receiving end' of assistance, we have here inserted theinaccurate term 'beneficiaries' to convey a sense of the nature of theexisting dominant discourse. Furthermore the figure is designed to highlighta particular discourse and not represent a particular 'reality'.

Smyth and Moore see action research as an interactive process thatmight result in change: 'in the researcher in terms of how he/she perceivesthe issue...among those researched in terms of access to information,expertise or advocacy, for examplc.and in outside agents'.7 The actionelement of collaborative action research, although still founded upon arecognition of change, is nonetheless channelled towards a slightly differentoutcome.

Within the CAR paradigm the outside agents are also those who arebeing researched, while the collaborators are not being subjected to study -they are not 'the researched'. The 'recipients' of intervention are also beinginvolved in the CAR process, but as informant evaluators and not asrecipient subjects. It is important to note here that no boundaries areconstructed between the various contingent parties within the research.Thus, some collaboration occurs with outside agents and informantevaluators in the design of the study, while some research interest is directedtowards the research partnership conducting the project. It is in this way thatthe by-now ritualized soul searching of reflexivity is to a certain degreereplaced by an openness within the process of research design. Theemphasis on change is deliberately directed towards the outside agents whoare also the main subjects in the investigation.

It can be seen from this brief description that while CAR seeks toovercome many of the same obstacles as participative action research,especially hegemony, it employs different means because it seeks differentoutcomes.

Pragmatic Considerations

Collaborative action research seeks to work in two key areas: (a) theproduction of novel, useful and relevant data on the effects of peacebuildingand post-conflict regeneration by external actors - to include guidelines,codes of conduct and policy suggestions; and (b) the development of aresearch methodology that assists with post-conflict regeneration byreinforcing local capacities for research and academic work.

Initial work for the Plymouth Peacebuilding Project and the experienceof other researchers would seem to suggest that the evaluation of post-conflict reconstruction is driven by what might crudely be termed a 'top

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Inte

rnat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:40

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

COLLABORATIVE ACTION RESEARCH AND PEACEBUILDING 83

down' approach. This frequently produces 'what donors want to hear ratherthan what they need to know.'8 Such evaluations might be roughly dividedinto two categories. On the one hand intervening organizations oftenconduct their own (self-)evaluations using criteria that they themselves havelaid down, or alternatively subject themselves to assessment by relatedorganizations. Such forms of evaluation might best be described as intra-organizational assessment. On the other hand, many evaluations arepresented as being autonomous, because they are carried out byorganizations and individuals who are either not engaged in intervention, orwho are for one reason or another are seen as not being related to thosebeing assessed. However, such evaluating organizations frequentlyoriginate from within the same institutional culture as those that they seekto evaluate, and bring with them the baggage of that culture. These forms ofevaluation might be referred to as inter-organizational assessment.' .

It is reasonable to suggest that evaluation work that is intra- or inter-organizationally driven would be less 'independent'. However, beforemaking such a criticism we must be reasonably clear that 'independence'should not be confused with 'irrelevance'. Thus, while it is important thatintervenors and donors should not simply be told what they want to hear,they should also be given useful and relevant information - what they needto know. It is therefore important that evaluations of peacebuilders shouldinclude at the very least a strong understanding of the peacebuildingorganization, its aims, ambitions, origins and funding. Ideally, the researchshould involve cooperation with those being assessed. It is in this way thatcollaborative action research is intended to" work independently ofintervening organizations while at the same time conducting research that isinformed by a cooperative understanding of the organizations that it seeksto evaluate.

Furthermore, by working with academics and researchers from withinwar-torn societies CAR engages with a relevant institutional culture that canalso provide the expertise and knowledge necessary to conduct effectiveresearch. Unlike participative action research, collaborative action researchis not participative in the sense of involvement with a particular groupculture or sub-culture as an incoming facilitator, assister, or motivator.Instead it engages with a particular institutional culture to form apartnership of mutual facilitation. Thus, whereas participative actionresearchers fit within a vertical dynamic of decision making by providing'the expertise' - and often the momentum - for a particular project,collaborative action research is topic driven and operates along a horizontaldynamic of shared outcomes. Collaborative action research, therefore, doesnot seek to employ local professionals, but to work with existingprofessional and academic frameworks to conduct research of mutual

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Inte

rnat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:40

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

84 INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING

interest and general benefit. Funding is, therefore, appropriated jointlythrough collaborative funding applications. It is this final characteristic -the way funding is sought - that allows CAR to be a more defined andindependent research instrument. Because collaborative action research hasan implicit interest in peacebuilding organizations but little or noinstitutional investment within them, it is able to address relevant issues ina more independent manner - it investigates what donors need to know, notjust what they want to know.

This brings us back to the second point of collaborative action researchas a means of reinforcing 'local' capacities for research and academicwork.10 Because CAR involves a collaborative process of direct applicationto global funding sources, it is less open to mediation by external interestgroups. Funding is sought from groups that might otherwise fund similarresearch by wholly 'external' researchers. In simple terms, it reinforces'local' research capacities by seeking external 'academic' funding for'local' research. Furthermore, by being collaborative in the ordinary andtraditional senses, CAR projects signal a customary and healthy academiccondition. For it would seem reasonable to suppose that the best way tofoster the vitality of the academic community within a regenerating societyis to support ownership, autonomy and independence within thatcommunity.

Conclusion

It is hoped that the particular characteristics of collaborative action researchwill encourage the production of useful and relevant information on theimportant issue of outside intervention in post-conflict regeneration, whilealso reinforcing local capacities for research and academic work within anenvironment of customary international collaboration. However, unlikesome other paradigms and methodologies, the future shape and survival ofCAR is contingent upon the level and nature of the investment it generates,rather than the amount of investment it represents, protects or perpetuates.

NOTES

1. There are exceptions to this 'externally' mediated research agenda. Notable among these isthe STAR/Delphi collaboration with 'local peace-activists' in the production and conduct ofevaluations of peacebuilding efforts. 'Annual Report Year II', Nov. 1996 and evaluationmaterial from Jill Benderly, STAR co-director Zagreb.

2. Marie Smyth and Ruth Moore, 'Researching Sectarianism', paper presented at the AnnualConference of the Sociological Association of Ireland, Clonmel, 13 May 1995, p.21.

3. Ibid., p.11.4. Ibid., p. 18.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Inte

rnat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:40

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

COLLABORATIVE ACTION RESEARCH AND PEACEBUILDING 85

5. For Smyth and Moore: 'Racism and sectarianism are included with the concept ofcolonialism, since both sectarianism and racism find a common history in the history ofcolonialism', ibid., p.19.

6. The research by Sanja Spoljar-Vrzina in Hvar is of particular interest here. See Sanja-Spoljar-Vrzina, 'Towards Further Analysing the Methodology of the Displaced Person andRefugee Research - An example from the Island of Hvar, Croatia', Coll. Anthropol, Zagreb:1996, Vol. 1, pp. 159-67. For other examples of this, see among others Maja Povrzanovic andRetna Jambresic Kirin, 'Negotiating Identities? The Voices of Refugees between Experienceand Representation', in Kirin and Povrzanovic (eds), War Exile Everyday Life: CulturalPerspectives, Zagreb: Institute of Ethnology and Folklore Research, 1996.

7. Smyth and Moore, p.22.8. Paul Stubbs describing work by Mark Duffield in 'Working Towards Social Reconstruction

in Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies: Lessons form Research in Post-Yugoslav Countries',summary paper produced for a workshop at the University of Zagreb, Croatia, 7 Mar. 1997.

9. Funders tend to prefer NGOs who reproduce, in part at least, their own view of the world andwho, whilst they may challenge some assumptions, do this within specific limits. It is notsimply that NGOs do what funders want; rather, that processes of negotiation and of alliancedevelop in which certain common emphases are created and certain other possibilities areruled impossible.' Paul Stubbs, 'Nationalisms, Globalization and Civil Society in Croatiaand Slovenia', paper presented to Second European Conference for Sociology, Budapest,Sept. 1995.

10. For building local capacities see, Mary B. Anderson and Peter J. Woodrow, Rising from theAshes: Development Strategies in Times of Disaster, Paris and Boulder: UNESCO/Westview,1989.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Inte

rnat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:40

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14