An emerging conversation between action research and conflict transformation

Abstract

This themed issue was inspired by emerging conversations between practitioners in the fields of action research and conflict transformation - a conversation that mirrored us both as guest editors. We see the potential for the approaches of each of our fields to strengthen each other’s work towards shared goals of transformation supporting social justice. Therefore, we offer this issue on Action Research and Conflict Transformation as a timely refocusing and reengagement for both fields.

We have chosen the term “conflict transformation,” (Bush and Folger, 2004), which is often used interchangeably with “peacebuilding,” for this themed issue because it resonates with ARJ’s mission to encourage action research transformations guided by concern for realizing a more sustainable world (Bradbury et al., 2019) and with the journal’s refreshed choice points for action research quality (Bradbury et al., 2020). This themed issue responds to the call of Goal 16 of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, to “promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, inclusive and accountable institutions at all levels” (United Nations Department of Social and Economic Affairs, n.d.). Conflict transformation goes beyond “conflict resolution,” which focuses mainly on negotiating agreements, and emphasizes the process of engaging conflict as a means of generating constructive change and restoring relationships (Lederach, 2003).

We believe that action research and conflict transformation can significantly increase their impact on this goal through a synergistic relationship in which conflict transformation is seen as an integral part of action research, and action research is seen as an integral part of conflict transformation.

The conflict transformation field has long had roots in action research and adopted many action research practices without always being aware of it. Conflict transformation approaches emphasize developing shared understandings of shared problems, and together envisioning ways forward that meets everyone’s needs. John Paul Lederach (2005) presents the role of the “moral imagination” in conflict transformation; people facing a conflict with moral imagination are rooted in today’s realities, but are able to see beyond these current realities to envision a future sustainable peace. Conflict transformation mobilizes diverse stakeholders to build just and sustainable peace by listening to each other and considering the various perspectives each involved person or group brings to the current situation. The more transformative approaches in the conflict transformation field emphasize the underlying values of social justice and transformation (Bush and Folger, 2004).

This understanding of conflict transformation resonates closely with action research as a participatory process, combining action and research, concerned with developing a variety of ways of knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes (Bradbury, 2015; Reason & Bradbury, 2008). Action research emphasizes participation – research “with” people, rather than “on” people – as well as social justice, reflexivity, and transformation. Action research takes place through democratized, open-ended, iterative and reflective processes in which the questions, design, and conclusions of the research emerge though collaborative learning.

Although both conflict transformation and action research share common origins, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere lineage of action research and conflict resolution presented by Kurt Lewin (1948), they diverged into two separate academic fields that often function without sufficient awareness of what each one could offer the other. While the academic fields have evolved and operated separately, the practices of conflict transformation and action research support shared emancipatory and transformative goals. However, the field of conflict transformation has not recently given sufficient attention to what action research can provide in dealing with challenges and opportunities that present themselves in conflict contexts. By the same token, the field of action research has not given sufficient attention to what it can learn from, and contribute to, conflict transformation practice and theory. Today’s social change possibilities provide opportunities for both action research and conflict transformation to become stronger through renewed engagement with each in support of their shared goals.

Engaged scholarship (Boyer, 1996) has generally been embraced by the conflict transformation field, with its strong normative commitments to preventing and reducing the death and destruction of war and to building positive peace and justice. Action for conflict transformation is, of course, core to the practitioner parts of our field. Reflective practice has also been acknowledged as a core approach for conflict transformation practitioners’ ongoing learning (Arms, 2018). Recently, action researchers have innovatively enriched conflict transformation practice through action research with conflict transformation practitioners (Gamaghelyan, 2017) and when engaging participatory action research as a form of conflict transformation practice (Elder, 2016).

Action research has been used as an approach to engaging conflict as well as building healthy, resilient relationships in the wake of conflict (Rothman, 2018). However, action researchers often lack the knowledge and skills necessary for effectively engaging conflicts that arise in their projects. They could greatly benefit from a deeper, more sophisticated knowledge of conflict transformation concepts and tools. These skills are important also because action research brings latent conflicts to the surface and sometimes even generates conflict (Chataway, 1997). Indeed, it could be argued that conflict transformation is an integral part of action research, which often involves multiple stakeholders whose interests, needs, and values do not always match (Arieli et al., 2009). Inquiry processes guided by democratic values involve constant negotiation over these differences and require mediation skills that are not generally part of the repertoire of mainstream researchers.

In this themed issue you see scholar-practitioners exploring the synergies of action research and conflict transformation practice today and how these approaches can be combined to enrich and complement each other in a variety of contexts and approaches. In choosing papers for this issue, we attempted to encompass a wide range of geographical contexts (e.g. Israel-Palestine, the Caucasus, Pakistan, Haiti, Spain), different types of conflict (e.g interpersonal, organizational, community, ethnic, international), and different levels of intervention [e.g. “first-person action research,” in which people inquire into their own lives and practice and “second-person action research,” in which people inquire face-to-face with others into mutual concerns (Reason & Bradbury, 2008)]. Most importantly, we chose papers with an eye towards “actionable knowledge” – that is, specific ways conflict transformation and action researchers practitioners can improve their practice.

Reflective practice and transformative self-awareness

Across this diversity of papers, we found a theme of reflective practice and transformative self-awareness. Razer (2020) highlights the positive transformative effect of action research for teachers who, by developing emotional self-awareness, are able to avoid potential power struggles with students, especially among excluded populations, and generate interactions aimed at meeting students’ needs. Cromwell and Tadevosyan (2020) bridge between the concept of reflective practice, common in conflict transformation, and first-person action research, highlighting how both concepts address positionality, a critical issue for both fields. Marie Pace (2020) presents the idea of “everyday action research,” weaving conflict transformation and action research together into a single approach that can help conflict transformation practitioners develop awareness that allows them to engage complexity while dealing with systems that are still modeled on mechanistic, linear thinking.

Power and transformation

We also find in the papers that both fields have growing edges around issues of power dynamics inhibiting the emancipatory work they do. Skorkowich et al. (2020) illustrates how action research was used by Jewish and Palestinian college students to develop their own process for engaging conflict while at the same time reflectively engaging the complex power relations among them. Neufeldt and Janzen (2020) report on how participatory action research was employed in communities in Haiti as an alternative to traditional development programs for conflict resolution and violence prevention. This initiative, which was sponsored by Canadian and Haitian nongovernmental organizations, illustrates how action research led/carried out by indigenous youth helped manage power differentials between stakeholders and produced results that were more relevant to communities themselves. Finally, drawing on her use of action research in territorial development in the Basque region of Spain, Larrea (2020) argues that action researchers are not simply process facilitators but stakeholders with legitimate ideological and political positions that make them parties in territorial development conflicts. In the role of parties, the power of action researchers as stakeholders shapes the conflict dynamics.

These growing edges allow us to suggest questions for further inquiry. We wonder how can action researchers who are stakeholders in conflicts be more aware of power and how it is defined – and better work with their own power in shaping conflict dynamics? What possibilities might there be for more explicit engagement of conflict transformation processes as part of negotiations within action research teams? What would be the impact of peacebuilders and action researchers working in contexts with power differentials further developing emotional self-awareness in their work, and what techniques would support such development? What processes help youth truly lead youth-led action research even when it is administered by far away adult-led organizations?

Earlier we wrote that the fields of conflict transformation and action research had diverged, but the papers in this themed issue indicate that this apparent divergence may be a result of academic fragmentation of disciplines. In practice, the two fields overlap in many ways and have a great deal in common. We present this issue with the hope it will strengthen the work of action researchers and conflict transformation practitioners, and also pave the way for further conversation and cooperation in both practice and research where these two fields meet.

Footnotes

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Susan H Allen

References

Arieli

Friedman

Agbaria

(2009). The paradox of participation in action research. Action Research, 7, 263–290.

Arms Almengor

(2018). Reflective practice and mediator learning: A current review. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 36, 21–38.

Bradbury

(Ed.). (2015). The handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (3rd ed.). Sage Publishing.

Bradbury H., Glenzer, K. Apgar, M., Embury, D., Friedman, V. J., Kjellstrom, S., Larrea, M., Childers-McKee, C., Hsiao-Chuan, H. Ortiz, A., Gray, P., Ku, B., Parenti, M., Trager J., Warwick, R., & Divecha, S. (2020). Action research journal’s seven quality choicepoints for action-oriented research for transformations. Action Research, 18, 3–6.

Bradbury

Waddell

O’Brien

Apgar

Teehankee

Fazey

(2019). A call to action research for transformations (ART): The times demand it. Action Research, 17, 3–10.

Boyer

E. L.

(1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 1, 11–20.

Bush

Folger

J. P.

(2004). The promise of mediation: The transformative approach to conflict. Jossey-Bass.

Chataway, C. J.

(1997). An Examination of the Constraints on Mutual Inquiry in a Participatory Action Research Project. Journal of Social Issues, 53, 747–765. https://doi.org/

10.1111/j.1540-4560.1997.tb02459.x

Cromwell

Tadevosyan

(2020). Deconstructing positionality in conflict resolution: Reflections from first-person action research in Pakistan and the South Caucasus. Action Research.

10.

Elder

(2016). Participatory action research (PAR), a tool for transforming conflict: A case study from South Central Somalia. Life and Peace Institute.

11.

Gamaghelyan

(2017). Conflict resolution beyond the international relations paradigm: Evolving designs as a transformative practice in Nagorno-Karabakh and Syria. Ibidem.

12.

Larrea

(2019). We are not third parties: Exploring conflict between action researchers and stakeholders as the engine of transformation. Action Research. [10.1177/1476750319865015][Mismatch]

13.

Lederach

J. P.

(2003). The little book of conflict transformation. Good Books.

14.

Lederach

J. P.

(2005). The moral imagination: The art and soul of building peace. Oxford University Press.

15.

Lewin

(1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 22, 34–46.[10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x] .,

16.

Neufeldt

Janzen

(2020). Learning from and with community-based and participatory action research: Constraints and adaptations in a youth-peacebuilding initiative in Haiti. Action Research.

17.

Pace

(2020). Everyday action research for complex times: A peacebuilder' guide. Action Research.

18.

Razer

(2020). From power struggle to benevolent authority and empathic limit-setting: Creating inclusive school practice with excluded students through action research. Action Research.

19.

Reason

Bradbury

(2008). Introduction. In Reason

Bradbury

(Eds.), The handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed., pp. 1–10). SAGE.

20.

Rothman

(2018). Re-envisioning conflict resolution: Vision, action and evaluation in creative conflict engagement. Routledge.

21.

Skorkowich

Arieli

Simonovich

Gur

Atamleh

(2020). Whose program is this? Negotiations in designing a student-initiated and student-led Jewish-Arab/Palestinian dialogue program on campus. Action Research.

22.

United Nations Department of Social and Economic Affairs (n.d.) Sustainable Development Goal 16. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal16