Gloria Rhodes

Conflict analysis is an essential component of designing and implementing peacebuilding action because it focuses on making sense of the situations where a peacebuilding action or intervention is desired. This article presents the results of an exploratory study based on semi-structured interviews with 20 practitioners from 19 countries on four continents. Participants represented diverse organizations working on peacebuilding projects in conflict-affected locations. The study focused on how participants (peacebuilding practitioners) gather and make sense of data (information) about the situations they face so they can make decisions for program design and implementation. Topics addressed by the study's participants included practice trends, methods of data collection and analysis, difficulties in gathering and assessing data, theories of change, and program or project assessment. The study concludes that the practitioners who participated mainly use informal methods to collect and make sense of data and do not make use of systematic approaches to conflict analysis.

Conflict analysis is an essential component of designing and implementing peacebuilding action because it focuses on making sense of the situations where a peacebuilding action or intervention is desired. This article presents the results of an exploratory study based on semi-structured interviews with 20 practitioners from 19 countries on four continents. Participants represented diverse organizations working on peacebuilding projects in conflict-affected locations. The study focused on how participants (peacebuilding practitioners) gather and make sense of data (information) about the situations they face so they can make decisions for program design and implementation. Topics addressed by the study's participants included practice trends, methods of data collection and analysis, difficulties in gathering and assessing data, theories of change, and program or project assessment. The study concludes that the practitioners who participated mainly use informal methods to collect and make sense of data and do not make use of systematic approaches to conflict analysis.

The book is a comparative study of professional practice to two schools of thought in the field of nonviolent conflict intervention: conflict resolution and conflict transformation. The research relies upon a thorough review of scholarly literature related to these two schools and on primary data collected from twenty semi-structured interviews with professional practitioners. The central question that guided the guided was: Do practitioners' definition and theories of practice, including goals, intervention strategies, and criteria for success, depend upon their self-identification with either the conflict resolution or conflict transformation school of thought? Categories of analysis for self definitions and intervention strategies arose from practitioner reports. Data related to goals for success were plotted on a framework for evaluating interactive conflict resolution which provided a structure for comparison.The research is relevant to everyone interested in research on pr...