Abstract
Participatory action research fits well with conflict resolution and peacebuilding; it is used by scholar-practitioners as part of field-based practice efforts that contribute to transforming conflict and add to scholarly knowledge. However, as Cynthia Chataway’s analysis of a participatory action research project undertaken with the Mohawk community of Kahnawake indicated, there are considerable constraints on mutual inquiry when it occurs in settings marked by historical oppression, distrust of outsiders and internal division; these constraints require the model to respond to the community context. Drawing on this insight, this paper explores a recent collaborative, community-based research that was part of a larger youth-centered peacebuilding and security initiative in Haiti. The initiative involved partners from Canada supporting a non-governmental organization and youth in four communities to engage in action research, under the umbrella of community-based research, as part of the 26-month project. The article draws out insights on ways in which the community-based research approach adapted to the conflict context, and reflects on the ways in which this form of engaged scholarship adds to knowledge in conflict resolution and peacebuilding.
Introduction
Participatory action research (PAR) fits well with conflict resolution and peacebuilding; it is used by scholar-practitioners as part of field-based practice efforts that contribute to transforming conflict and add to scholarly knowledge. Yet, PAR has often not lived up to its billing as being fully participatory or action-oriented in conflict resolution and peacebuilding. There is a mixed relationship between the desire to do research that is action-oriented, and the record of accomplishment of publications, as will be explored below. There are also constraints on mutual inquiry that exist in settings marked by historical oppression, distrust of outsiders, and internal division; these constraints require the model to respond to the community context (Chataway, 1997). These constraints appear to be understood particularly well in the related literature of community-based research.
This article explores the ways in which community-based research was included in a youth-centered peacebuilding and security initiative in Haiti. The initiative involved partners from Canada supporting a non-governmental organization and youth in four communities in Haiti. The project included youth-led action research, under the umbrella of community-based research, as part of the 26-month project. We begin by clarifying the different research traditions and approaches that frame and contribute to participatory and action-oriented research. We then look at the ways in which PAR in particular has been influential in conflict resolution research, and to a lesser extent in peacebuilding. After outlining the project in Haiti and the process followed in the community-based research, we present results from process-tracing research undertaken on the initiative. We conclude by looking at ways in which the community-based research approach adapted to the conflict context, and reflect on the ways in which this form of engaged scholarship adds to knowledge in conflict resolution and peacebuilding.
Participatory action research
Underpinnings of PAR and variations
PAR has been defined as a research “approach that involves active participation of stakeholders, those whose lives are affected by the issue being studied, in all phases of research for the purpose of producing useful results to make positive changes” (Nelson et al., 1998, p. 12). PAR recognizes community members as knowledge-rich partners, offering their experiential and practical knowledge in complement to theoretical knowledge held by outside experts (Heron & Reason, 1997). Knowledge is therefore co-created through community engagement which also serves to maximize research utilization (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005; Small & Uttal, 2005; Wallerstein & Duran, 2003). Such an approach responds to fundamental issues of fairness and equity in which “knowledge democracy” is advanced as community members are seen as full partners in research that impacts their lives (de Sousa Santos, 2006; Gaventa, 1993; Hall, 2011; Visvanathan, 2009).
PAR can be understood as a combining of two global research traditions (for a detailed discussion of the historical merging of these traditions, see Nelson et al., 1998). On the one hand is the participatory research tradition emerging from the global South. This research tradition acknowledges that when people are conscious of their situation and the power that oppresses them, they can collectively work towards emancipation and a better future (Fals Borda, 1987; Freire, 1970). As such, community members and researchers share control of any research agenda through active and reciprocal involvement in the research design, implementation, and dissemination (Hall, 1975; Ochocka et al., 2010). Such emphasis on equitable participation has meant the engagement of committed activists and other “decisive stakeholders” who are central to the research issue, and who may or may not have had previous experience in research activities (Chaudhary et al., 1989). On the other hand is the action research tradition emerging from the global North that is frequently associated with Kurt Lewin. This research tradition has an emphasis on progressive change through successive reflective action cycles (Lewin 1948, 1951). It views research as social intervention; that both the process and results of research should be useful to community members in making positive social change and in promoting social equity (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005). In other words, research produces not only a vision for future collective action but also builds a sense of community and enables people to work toward that vision (Stringer, 2007).
Recently, the term “community-based research” emerged as another common descriptor of research that seeks to challenge and provide an alternative to externally- and expert-driven research. The term is gaining traction in Canada (Travers et al., 2008) and globally as evidenced by the establishment of the UNESCO chair of Community-based Research and Social Responsibility in Higher Education (Etmanski et al., 2014; GUNi, 2015). A variant term “community-based participatory research” is used more frequently in the United States (Israel et al., 1998; Minkler & Wallertsein, 2008). Those using the term community-based research typically embrace participation and action. However, as the name suggests, the term additionally stresses that research be community-driven, foregrounding the preeminence of community agendas over researcher agendas, ensuring that research is responsive to community context and is practically relevant to those most affected by the research. What is more, community members should gain voice and choice through the research process (Smith, 2012), with the research drawing on the ways of knowing that resonate with them (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005). In addition to the research traditions of the global North and South, the term community-based research can also be seen to draw on Indigenous research traditions in which research processes promote community self-determination (Kovach, 2015; Wilson, 2008). We will return to this community-driven distinction in the Discussion section.
PAR, conflict resolution, and peacebuilding
Psychology was one of conflict resolution’s founding disciplines. The influential work of Kurt Lewin in the 1940s, as well as the pioneering efforts of John Dollard (1937) studying racism in the US (Maracek et al., 1997), helped shape the ways scholars and scholar-practitioners in peace and conflict studies viewed research and its ties to social change. The PAR frame that came out of their approach was ideal, with its effort to bridge the gap between theory and practice, to problem-solve, to enhance social change and transfer ownership of the process and knowledge that is produced to the affected community.
In the field of conflict resolution, PAR gained numerous supporters and adherents. Problem-solving workshops, which focused on bringing together people considered to be mid-level, social influencers in protracted conflicts for off-the record problem-solving dialogues, were viewed through a lens of PAR almost from the beginning in the 1970s (Fisher, 1983; Kelman, 1982). Morton Deutsch’s influential work on mediation also utilized the principles of action research (Kressel, 2006). Others, such as Jay Rothman, have used PAR principles in an applied way for programs through action evaluation (Rothman, 1997). We also see support for PAR in the numerous Master’s programs in peace and conflict resolution, with PAR noted as a research method taught or available to their students (e.g. Eastern Mennonite University’s conflict transformation program, Notre Dame’s Peace Studies program, George Mason University’s School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, American University’s International Peace and Conflict Resolution program).
The field also appears to be ambivalent about PAR. In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution, the authors suggest, “Most research on CRIs [Conflict Resolution Initiatives] in the field – no matter how it is otherwise labelled – is a form of action research” because it requires active collaboration between action and research personnel (Deutsch et al., 2006, p. 828). While Deutsch et al. argue that PAR increases the likelihood that research findings are used, they also list an extensive set of reasons why it is problematic from their vantage point. They note it is time-consuming, burdensome, and expensive, that there may be different goals and standards between the field practitioner and researcher (e.g. improving existing services versus advancing knowledge) (p. 829). They also suggest that researchers will fear that their peers will view their research as insufficiently well controlled to have merit (p. 829). What is interesting here is not so much the debate about hierarchically organized research ontologies, but rather the overall emphasis of their critiques. The authors reinforce reasons not to pursue PAR from within academia. Thus, rather than embracing the ability of PAR to address problems in practice, they undermine its approach.
While there is enthusiasm for PAR, the publication record of initiatives using PAR in major journals in peace and conflict resolution is underwhelming. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, issued eight times a year, published nine articles deliberately using the term PAR (or participatory inquiry, or action inquiry or action research) between 1957 and 2011. Of these, six articles simply mention PAR as a viable approach and three provide findings from using action research in problem-solving workshops. Using the same search in the Journal of Peace Research yielded seven articles between 1964 and 2011, three of which were research articles, one a general reference to PAR, and three were book reviews. The journal Peace and Change had published 24 PAR-related articles between 1975 and 2011, and Conflict Resolution Quarterly also published 24 articles in a shorter span of time (2001–2011). This steady but limited set of publications reinforces the argument that there is ambivalence in conflict resolution and peace studies towards action research. This is partly explained by epistemological commitments to prioritizing quantitative research in the journals of Conflict Resolution and Peace Research. It may also be partly explained by the difficulties noted above in terms of finishing PAR. A third possibility is that the models of PAR that are used in conflict interventions run into problems in the contexts themselves.
In the 1990s, Cynthia Chataway wrote up her experiences of trying to use PAR in a conflict-affected Indigenous community as a white settler and researcher (although she did not use these exact terms). Her article, titled “An examination of the constraints on mutual inquiry in a participatory action research project” (1997) explored ways in which she as an outside researcher needed to adapt the methodology for practical and ethical necessity. She identified ways in which working in conflict-affected communities and navigating internal divisions became part of the PAR process. This included sometimes “co-researchers” choosing to distance themselves from particular end products and a need for self-protection given the political nature of the work. She also noted that she sometimes concealed community voices in order that others in the community might hear them more clearly. This work highlighted some of the challenges with PAR in conflict-affected communities.
Interest in PAR and community-based research continues, in good measure due to its founding principles around community engagement, changing power dynamics and producing action for social change as this themed journal demonstrates. Further, organizations that engage in peacebuilding practice use aspects of PAR as part of evaluation (e.g. Jessica Stern’s talk on NDI and “Community-based Participatory Research with Marginalized Communities” on the DM&E for Peace Thursday Talks series 7 March 2018, or the Everyday Peace Indicators project initiated by Roger MacGinty and Pamina Firchow). However, the question remains, can we work with communities to do research on their own conflicts in ways that help produce transformation led by the community itself? How do power dynamics and conflict settings affect this effort? These are some of the questions we seek to answer in looking at the implementation process of community-based research in a project called “Let’s Live Together” (LLT) in Haiti.
Youth-led research in a Haiti project
The LLT project
LLT was a 26-month (February 2017–March 2019) project to increase community security and reduce violence in four communities of Haiti. The project was led by an international non-governmental organization in Haiti (INGO), in collaboration with Haitian and Canadian partners. Canadian partners included members situated at a university, a restorative justice non-governmental organization, and a community-based research organization. The project, funded by Global Affairs Canada, was in support of the Government of Canada’s priorities to strengthen vulnerable communities, leading to safer and more prosperous places to live.
The LLT project focused on strengthening groups vulnerable to violence – particularly youth – in four at-risk communities of Haiti. The four communities were intentionally selected because of their geographic diversity from highly urban to rural-urban to allow for comparison across the milieu. The INGO had previously been involved in each of the four communities. These communities (and their corresponding sub-sections) included: the rural-urban community of Arcahaie; the peri-urban community of Canaan; the urban community of Carrefour-Feuilles; and the rural community of Miragoane.
There were three main components that made up the LLT project: (1) youth-led research and action (including community-based research and resulting micro-projects), (2) conflict resolution and life skills (including restorative justice training and life skills training), and (3) economic and financial inclusion (including internships, entrepreneurship training, and savings and loans groups). The project’s theory of change was initially articulated in this way: By equipping youth with knowledge and employing that knowledge to uncover the root causes of violence in their communities, there will be relevant interventions to create space for dialogue and conflict resolution which will enable vulnerable communities and groups to recover and rebuild their livelihoods.
The youth-led research component
Youth-led research was the first component implemented by the LLT project, and followed by the other activities in the project. Its purpose was to engage community members to collaboratively identify and understand the neighborhood-specific drivers of conflict and violence, and then together to develop community action plans that strategically helped to address root causes. The youth-led research component sought to answer five main research questions: (1) What kind of conflict happens in each of the four neighborhoods? (2) What causes this conflict to exist and what is its impact? (3) What are local community members already doing to address the conflict? (4) What has the role of police been in responding to the conflict? and (5) What else could community members do to address the conflict?
The youth-led research component consisted of two cycles of research, each about six months in length. Each cycle of research involved four phases containing 11 non-linear steps. Local youth researchers were hired, trained, and supported within each cycle. Cycle 1 served as a pilot cycle in which a core of youth researchers and local community organizations were engaged. Cycle 2 doubled the number of youth researchers involved and doubled the data collection targets. Community-specific learnings from Cycle 1 helped to improve the tailored implementation of research activities within each community for Cycle 2.
Given the exploratory purpose of the research, qualitative methods were used to provide in-depth understanding of the drivers of conflict within each of the four communities. Specifically, individual interviews and focus group discussions were conducted in Haitian Creole, using a semi-structured interview guide that followed the study’s five main research questions. Two youth researchers facilitated each individual interview and focus group discussion, and recorded notes. The discussions were audio recorded (with participant permission) to help supplement researcher notes and to identify salient direct quotations.
When probing for conflict in their community, youth researchers followed the dimensions of conflict according to Lederach (2003). These dimensions consider conflict in terms of: (1) personal aspects (physical, emotional, mental and spiritual health of individual people), relational aspects (the way people communicate and interact with each other), structural aspects (the way society is built to provide access to resources and decision-making), cultural aspects (the patterns and norms of living together that are important to a group of people).
At least five individual interviews were held in each community during Cycle 1 (double for Cycle 2) and at least 10 focus group discussions were held in each community during Cycle 1 (double for Cycle 2). A total of at least 55 participants were targeted in each community for Cycle 1, with at least 110 participants targeted in each community for Cycle 2. The researchers within each community purposively sampled individual interview and focus group participants. All participants were required to be living within the community, be at least 18 years old, be willing and able to answer the questions, and support the goals of the LLT project. In addition, diverse perspectives were sought including diversity in age, gender, and occupation.
Research participants were recruited by youth researchers with the support of community leaders. While participant recruitment was somewhat challenging (often due to disinterest or lack of trust), youth researchers used a number of strategies to aid their recruitment. Strategies included organizing community mobilization meetings, distributing invitation letters, and going door-to-door to raise awareness about the purpose of the research. Individual interviews were conducted at participants’ houses or in places of the participant’s choosing. Focus group discussions were organized in churches, schools, and other community spaces.
In total, 824 community members participated in individual interviews and focus group discussions across the four communities. Youth researchers sought informed consent (verbally and through written form) prior to each individual interview and focus group discussion being careful to explain the purpose of the research project. A summary of research participation by community is found in Table 1. Further details of sampling, recruitment, and interviewing experiences within each community can be found in the research technical report (LLT Community Based Research Technical Report, 2019).
Summary of research participants.
aMinimum targets of 55 participants were met or exceeded in all four communities.
bMinimum targets of 110 participants were exceeded in all four communities.
Youth researchers were trained and supported to conduct qualitative thematic analysis within their community. Data analysis was conducted in Haitian Creole near the end of both research cycles. The Canadian partner with expertise in community-based research provided local research teams with instructions to follow a seven-step data analysis process. Instructions included having researchers first review the main research questions and have an initial read of the interview data. Next researchers were trained to label all documents in such a way that an audit trail could be established in later analysis. Researcher teams then used the analysis template provided to enter all relevant data and identify codes, categories, and themes according to the study’s five main research questions. Researchers typically followed these steps first in small groups with a designated portion of data (e.g. by research question) before having large group discussions to verify and refine themes. Youth researchers later presented the themes for each cycle of research at an open forum in their community (described below), providing an opportunity for all research participants (and interested others) to react to and expand on the local themes presented. The four youth research teams were primarily supported in their data analysis by the INGO’s local “community mobilizers” (Haitian staff) and by Canadian graduate student interns, all of whom also participated in the data analysis training. Within each community, the data analysis process in Cycle 1 was rushed producing thinner results than in Cycle 2, which was more robust and produced deeper results. The data analysis process in each cycle resulted in a written thematic report being written in Haitian Creole for each community. These reports were later translated into English by the INGO’s staff.
The youth-led research adopted a community-based research approach, striving to be community-driven, participatory, and action-oriented in answering the study’s main research questions. Six concrete mechanisms were used to implement this community-based research approach in the LLT project.
Youth researchers: Youth from each of the targeted communities were hired to lead the research. Forty youth (10 from each community) were hired in Cycle 1 and 80 youth (20 from each community) in Cycle 2. Many but not all youth in Cycle 1 continued their involvement in Cycle 2. Youth were hired with the support of local community organizations through a formal hiring process. Efforts were made to maintain gender balance within each community. Ongoing training and support: Regular training was provided to equip youth and community partners to carry out the research within their community. Training sessions were prepared and delivered collaboratively between the Canadian partner staff and Haitian staff of the INGO. Training was implemented incrementally, beginning with the training of the INGO’s local staff before moving to train staff of community partner organizations and youth researchers themselves. The training equipped youth to recruit and interview people in their community, consider ethical issues, summarize and share the data collected, organize community forums, and create new community action plans. In addition, ongoing support was provided to youth via the INGO and community partner staff with coaching support from the Canadian partner. Stakeholder guidance: Within each community, local partners were invited to guide the research process. In Cycle 1, this guidance was limited to one primary community organization identified through a competitive bidding process. In Cycle 2, violence prevention committees (VPCs) were established, which broadened stakeholder involvement in supporting the youth-led research. These stakeholders helped vet actions proposed by the research team, provide advice on challenges being faced (including ethical issues), and coordinate project activities in their community. Community summaries: Brief summaries of the research process and findings were written and circulated within each of the four participating communities after each research cycle. Summaries included a two-page written summary as well an icon-based one-page infographic. Summaries were written in accessible language (in Creole) and focused only on the research in that particular community. These community summaries complemented the lengthier English research summary found in the technical research report. Community forums: Community forums were held in each community at the end of both research cycles (total of eight forums). Table 1 shows the range of community participation within each research cycle. Youth led the planning and implementation of these forums with support from the community organizations, the INGO and Canadian partner. Forums were an opportunity for community members to hear and verify research findings, and to prioritize resulting action. Forums also served to demonstrate and celebrate youth leadership with the community. Micro-projects: A series of small community projects were launched in response to the discussions held at the local community forums. Each project was required to address at least one root cause of the conflict identified through the research in their community. Community members led micro-projects with a small amount of funding provided by the LLT project. Projects were awarded based on a competitive proposal process, with INGO local staff providing training in proposal development. In total, over 50 micro-projects were developed and implemented across the four communities after Cycle 1 (Arcahaie = 8; Canaan = 13; Carrefour-Feuilles = 24; Miragoane = 7).
Using community-based participatory research in this conflict context – Adaptations and lessons
Implementing two cycles of research allowed the findings to probe deeper into the root causes of conflict. These phases emphasize that community-based research has as its goal not only to produce new knowledge but also to mobilize people to use that knowledge in addressing pressing issues within their community. The community-based research was adapted to each local context – the four different communities having slightly different experiences with the research, how the community guided the research, and how micro-projects were viewed. For example, there were differences in who supervised youth researchers (the INGO or community partners), and in the number and degree of community partner involvements. There were differences in some sampling criteria and in participant recruitment strategies based on local dynamics and population idiosyncrasies. There were differences in the number and focus of micro-projects implemented across the four communities.
The following themes emerged from a follow-up research project, led by the University-based partner, to learn from the successes and challenges of the project. This subsequent research project provided a systematic and structured case comparison of findings from implementing LLT to better understand how change happened and generate insights into the effects of program activities. Each case utilized a process tracing methodology with careful description and sequencing deployed to understand what occurred and to what effect. Specific research methods included a project document review, participatory observation, semi-structured interviews with key informants, and purposively sampled focus group discussions conducted in Creole and translated into English.
While there were adaptions in each community, some positive aspects of the community-based research were held in common across all four communities. Most pronounced was that those involved in the research acknowledged that they valued the community-led research approach, which allowed communities to identify their own problems and solutions. This approach was seen to be in contrast to other research experiences they had had where other non-governmental organizations had entered the community with their own ideas of the community problems and solutions. For example, a key informant in one community said, “It is people in [our community] who identified the real needs that the community has. It was not [the NGO] that came straight with a project the way that many other NGOs usually do.” Likewise, in a focus group discussion in another community, a participant clarifying a comment on positive aspects of the LLT project said, we are saying that because it was the youth within the community that were used to conduct the research. And the research was done with the people living in the community and it was with the feedback of those within the community that [the NGO] used to create an action plan for the community. It wasn’t something that the organizations come with, something already prepared coming in the community. For example, there are some organizations that come in with the projects and li vle poul ateri, and then it wasn’t what the people in the community has as problems. The research, when you do it in the community, it’s really good; that means that allowed you to do, umm … To bring a solution to something you need to know what problems that the community had. And that was really good. this activity … let me sit down and talk to people in the area, especially those that had fingers pointed at them as people who are involved in violent activities, I learned more about the types of conflict in the area and what pushes people, more specifically youth, to participate in that kind of activities. … I [found I] finally did not really understand. I was lying to myself because what I understood was not what it was and sometimes I misunderstood some people or judged them by looking at them, but this activity helped me understand my neighborhood better.
Another common positive aspect mentioned in all four communities was that the research was seen to enhance youth skills and leadership. While youth researchers previously possessed skills, the research stimulated their interest in learning, provided an opportunity to develop skills in analyzing problems and gathering as well as analyzing data; it increased their confidence, expanded their relationships with other community leaders, and provided the space for them to be recognized and supported as leaders within their community. As one participant described: Myself and 20 other agents benefited from this training, which is useful in different situations or in our own lives. It teaches us how to speak to people, how to be good listeners and how to ask open and close-ended questions and how we can better understand when someone is speaking. I think that this was one of the things that worked well and it allowed us to create a micro-project, which brought growth to the region. Madam, give us some things from what you have, in what you do research if you want to look deeper in the research. We would like to at least, what we have left in our hands, at least we can increase our knowledge, even if another organization was to come in the community that wasn’t [the NGO], a trainer and researcher can be helped because we have valuable information.
Youth also noted that working on the research in teams enhanced relationships within the research team and in their community. The research provided them with an opportunity to meet other youth from different neighborhoods within their community, and to build important bonds within the team and with others in the community. In one participant’s words, “we improved relationships with people which enabled me to work with my other colleagues and that helped me to discover some areas and localities that I did not know.” In another community, a young woman noted that “in the first part [of the research] there were 10, in the second part we came to have 20; that gave us more opening in the area” which was important not only for broadening the reach of the research but for including members of the community. In each of the communities, it was also noted that the positive relationships within the communities were further developed via the participation of local organizations and community leaders in the research, in the forum, and/or the VPCs associated with the research.
There were a number of challenging aspects experienced at the onset, with research starting slowly within each community. Delays were experienced as the INGO staff, youth researchers, and community partners negotiated their respective roles, responsibilities, and contracts for work none had previously conducted. Once contracts were signed, the fee-for-service model, where payments were linked to deliverables, was not always understood (researchers wondering when they would get paid and INGO staff wondering when the work would be finished). In addition, there were initial communication misunderstandings and logistical challenges (e.g. availability of equipment). Finally, the community-based approach and its potential was new resulting in a learning curve for staff, youth, and community alike. Combined, these challenges caused start-up delays, with some youth initially feeling frustrated and not adequately supported. The second cycle of research addressed many of the early challenges.
In three of the communities, youth researchers found gathering information was very difficult. In these communities, particularly ones where there had been extensive humanitarian aid, youth researchers noted people were tired of being interviewed and not having anything come of that research. As one said, “they tell you that these people always pass by here and they never do anything.” However, this same person noted, “But despite everything, we did find the information even when we had a hard time to find them.” Because youth were from the community, they nevertheless found others who were interested in participating. They noted that community trust was an important part of being successful in this research. Yet, even being from the community, some noted it was a challenge to get people to speak about the sources of conflict fully: “sometimes they were a bit hesitant … I don’t know if they were scared, they wouldn’t really give you an answer … ” Or, as another observed in the same community, “It’s true that we in the community we know the problems, but the people seem a bit evasive, or also, these people talk about subjects that concerns [only] them.” The comments here point more generally to the challenge of engaging in research on difficult subjects, and the importance of being sensitive to the conflict context.
In three of the four communities, either low trust in community-based organizations or capacity challenges within the organizations, meant that the original model envisioned in Cycle 1 – of having a local partner organization anchor the research – did not work well. In two of these communities, while the local organizations did not have the capacity to support the project, they nevertheless remained supportive of the second round of research. In the fourth community, the local organization was trusted, had the necessary capacities and successfully led the two cycles of research. In the other communities, a new structure emerged, geared towards allowing more leaders in the community to provide input into the research through the community violence prevention (CVP) committees, with clearer lines of management by the INGO. The second cycle of research had greater success because the structures and management were better adapted to the community context and, while a hybrid in terms of participation, they responded to community dynamics and concerns that emerged in the first cycle of research.
The second model, of having a CVP committee, had its own challenges and involved navigating community conflict dynamics more fully. One community decided to limit the role of its CVP; the CVP members in this community decided not to review or vet micro-project proposals because they were concerned it would increase conflict as there were already challenging dynamics between community-based organizations. This group decided to have the INGO lead the selection process instead. Another CVP found itself challenged by conflicts of interest within the group; members in this group were inclined to approve their respective organization’s submissions for micro-projects, which lead to further conversations and discussions and delayed the selection of micro-projects.
The action after the research involved applying to a fund with proposals for micro-projects that responded to the conflict analysis presented at the community forums. The different conflict contexts meant that the micro-projects approach (as opposed to implementing fewer larger projects) did not fit equally well. For example, one of the communities that was particularly struggling with infrastructure problems because it was set up quickly and without planning after the 2010 earthquake would have preferred larger projects that addressed some of the significant gaps in services in their community, which were daily sources of friction. Leaders in another community also had hoped for larger projects. The guidelines and constraints involved in selecting micro-projects that responded to research findings highlighted a tension in the project in that the funds for the project could not be used for everything that the community identified as important. Nevertheless, many in the communities found the micro-projects worked very well because it allowed multiple groups to apply for funds and undertake actions they designed themselves related to conflict. The process also enabled groups of people who were not formally organized as community-based organizations to apply for projects and build their capacity to do so in future if they chose to become more formally organized. The micro-projects were therefore more accessible to some.
A very important aspect of findings from focus group research and key informant interviews involved helping to shift views and understandings of the community. As one researcher noted, it allowed “us to better understand the community. There are things you’ve heard but it’s when you talk to people, you become more aware of the dynamics there, what they are really going through in the community.” The analysis helped some to change their views of others whom they saw as causing conflict in the community. The research process also built relationships between the youth researchers as they came from different neighborhoods within the community, and these relationships helped decrease suspicions of people in other neighborhoods.
Implications for peacebuilding and the use of community-based participatory research
The conflict dynamics within each community necessitated a number of adaptations to the PAR process as described above. Important work was done in each community, navigating engagement with divergent stakeholders as part of the research process. This work was made in effort to address the constraints often associated with implementing PAR in conflicted-affected communities (outlined in the Introduction). The lessons of the LLT case example therefore provide some insight into how the gap can be bridged between on-the-ground peacebuilding efforts and the use of research that strives to be participatory and action-oriented. We will highlight three main insights, one conceptual, one practical, and the other ethical in nature.
To begin, adopting an expanded understanding of the function of research can be a conceptual bridge linking conflict resolution and research that wishes to be transformative. Traditionally, research has been seen to primarily function as a means of gaining new knowledge (knowledge production). As with all research, community-based research extends knowledge through disciplinary and interdisciplinary inquiry and systematic investigation. Within community-based research, knowledge is co-produced, as both community members and researchers are engaged in designing and conducting research for knowledge generation (Hall, 2011; Stoecker et al., 2009). Yet community-based research also functions to activate knowledge for use within society (knowledge mobilization). Research findings are disseminated in ways that enliven various audiences to transform society within their respective spheres of influence (Hall, 2011; Hall & Tandon 2017). Finally, community-based research is a relational exercise in that it enables diverse stakeholders to work in new ways together (community mobilization). That is to say, research functions to initiate and enhance social movements that lead to innovative solutions (Janzen et al., 2016; Ochocka & Janzen, 2014). Following this three-pronged conceptualization, community-based research requires not only technicians of rigorous research (knowledge production) but also effective communicators (knowledge mobilization) and competent facilitators (community mobilization). As with conflict resolution theory, the engagement and active involvement of community stakeholders is paramount within such a conceptualization of research.
Secondly, conceptual frameworks alone are not sufficient in bridging the gap between conflict resolution theory and practice and action research. The aspirations to engage community members require practical strategies in creating communicative and participatory spaces in conflict settings where power dynamics, politics, and divisions interact in volatile ways. The six engagement strategies outlined in the description of LLT project above are examples (i.e. youth researchers, training, stakeholder guidance, communities’ summaries, community forums, micro-projects). Perhaps most noteworthy was the involvement of local youth as leaders of the research in their respective communities. Youth led information gathering, analyzing the results, and presented their findings in the community with training support in the background from the local staff of the INGO and the Canadian partner. In this way, youth embodied the co-production of research knowledge, its dissemination to fellow community members and became chief mobilizers of a local community response. The youth researchers noted the importance of the training and skill development, but they also saw the research process and product as their own.
Another practical strategy worth highlighting was the implementation of VPCs within each community. One role of these committees was to assist in the review process for micro-projects. This experience pointed to the tension of groups external to a community funding community-based research and action. External groups in this approach are necessarily involved in and establish some of the parameters for funds usage, even when parameters are established in consultation with the community. There were understandable but sometimes frustrating limitations for CVP members in terms of choosing what to fund and feeling they were constrained by the INGO. Intriguingly, despite this frustration, participants of focus group discussions and key informant interviews mentioned that they still viewed the approach as a really good one, as a “beautiful” approach, and in contrast to problematic models of aid they had experienced.
We end with an ethical bridge. Our LLT experience leads us to see that PAR, as shaped by the northern and southern traditions, benefits from a third Indigenous research tradition in foregrounding the importance of being community-driven when working in contexts of power differentials and inequities (including in conflict-affected settings). Indigenous researchers such as Smith (2012) emphasize that research should explore issues that are relevant to community members, using their own vernaculars and ways of knowing that resonate locally in such a way that enables community members to gain voice and choice. In other words, there is an ethical commitment that promotes community self-determination (Kovach, 2015; Wilson, 2008). Such a commitment to self-determination and locally owned solutions is similarly helpful when addressing problematic power dynamics often attendant in peacebuilding work where funds and expertise can come from external actors.
To summarize, a conceptual commitment to, and practical strategies for, community engagement, which is undergirded by an ethic of ensuring community voice in, and ownership over transformative social change are integral ingredients of both just peacebuilding and community-based research. Including these conceptual, practical, and ethical elements in analyzing the roots of conflict in a community connects the means and ends of peacebuilding with the means and ends of research. The LLT project described above did not do this entirely. It encountered challenges, with learning and adaptations along the way. Yet, it points the way to how engaged scholarship can further add to knowledge in conflict resolution and peacebuilding and utilize a community-based approach that helps to navigate the complexities.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank colleagues in Haiti and the youth researchers for their insights, leadership and work on the community-based research, particularly James, Laura, Justin and Jessica. Thanks to Katelynn Folkerts and Riyaz Basi for helping liaise and support the research. Further thanks to the reviewers for helpful comments that refined and strengthened the article, and to the participants at the International Studies Association 2019 panel in Toronto who provided feedback on a draft of the paper.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: The project was funded by Global Affairs Canada. The research was further supported by a grant from the Conrad Grebel University College Academic Development and Research Fund.
