Introduction: The Key Strengths of Ethnographic Peace Research

  • Gearoid Millar
Part of the Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies book series (RCS)


This volume is about understanding experiences of conflict, of peace, and of transitions between the two. It argues that a forceful Ethnographic Peace Research (EPR) agenda can provide the necessary empirical focus for progressing the local turn in peace studies. The Introduction discusses the weakness of the local turn, as well as its complementarity with other streams of literature in anthropology, conflict transformation, and feminist international relations. It then presents five key strengths of EPR as evidenced in the contributions to the volume and describes how these are mutually constitutive. The Introduction concludes by noting also the interdisciplinary tensions to which an EPR agenda gives rise, but notes that this must be seen as a constructive tension that will spur creative interdisciplinary thinking and solutions.


  1. Al-Krenawi, Alean, and John R. Graham. 1999. Conflict Resolution through a Traditional Ritual among the Bedouin Arabs of Negev. Ethnology 38 (2): 163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Autesserre, Severine. 2014. Peaceland: Conflict Resolution and the Everyday Politics of International Intervention. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avruch, Kevin. 1998. Culture and Conflict Resolution. Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  4. Björkdahl, Annika, and Kristine Höglund. 2013. Precarious Peacebuilding: Friction in Global-Local Encounters. Peacebuilding 1 (3): 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Björkdahl, Annika, Kristine Höglund, Gearoid Millar, Jair van der Lijn, and Willemijn Verkoren. 2016. Peacebuilding and Friction: Global and Local Encounters in Post-Conflict Societies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Boutros-Ghali, Boutros. 1992. An Agenda for Peace. UN Documents. Accessed April 25, 2017.
  7. Brahimi, Lakhdar. 2000. Comprehensive Review of the Whole Question of Peacekeeping Operations in All Their Aspects. UN Accessed April 25, 2017.
  8. Bräuchler, Birgit. 2015. The Cultural Dimension of Peace. Decentralization and Reconciliation in Indonesia. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Call, Charles T., and Elizabeth M. Cousens. 2008. Ending Wars and Building Peace: International Responses to War-Torn Societies. International Studies Perspectives 9 (1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chandler, David. 2006. Empire in Denial: The Politics of State-Building. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  11. ———. 2013. Peacebuilding and the Politics of Non-Linearity: Rethinking ‘Hidden’ Agency and ‘Resistance’. Peacebuilding 1 (1): 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cockburn, Cynthia. 1998. The Space between Us: Negotiating Gender and National Identities in Conflict. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  13. ———. 2013. War and Security, Women and Gender: An Overview of the Issues. Gender and Development 21 (3): 433–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Das, Veena. 2007. Life and Words: Violence and the Descent into the Ordinary. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 2008. Violence, Gender, and Subjectivity. Annual Review of Anthropology 37: 283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dillon, Richard G. 1976. Ritual Resolution in Meta’ Legal Process. Ethnology 15 (3): 287–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Donais, Timothy. 2009. Empowerment or Imposition? Dilemmas of Local Ownership in Post-Conflict Peacebuilding Processes. Peace and Change 34 (1): 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Doyle, Michael. 2000. A More Perfect Union? The Liberal Peace and the Challenge of Globalization. Review of International Studies 26 (5): 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ———. 2005. Three Pillars of the Liberal Peace. American Political Science Review 99 (3): 463–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Doyle, Michael W., and Nicholas Sambanis. 2000. International Peacebuilding: A Theoretical and Quantitative Analysis. The American Political Science Review 94 (4): 779–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Enloe, Cynthia. 2007. Globalization and Militarism: Feminists Make the Link. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Fetherston, A.B. 2000. Peacekeeping, Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding: A Reconsideration of Theoretical Frameworks. International Peacekeeping 7 (1): 190–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fuller, Abigail A. 1992. Toward an Emancipatory Methodology for Peace Research. Peace & Change 17 (3): 286–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  25. Hamer, John H. 1980. Preference, Principle, and Precedent: Dispute Settlement and Changing Norms in Sidamo Associations. Ethnology 19 (1): 89–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Herbert, Christopher. 1991. Culture and Anomie: Ethnographic Imagination in the Nineteenth Century. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Honwana, Alcinda. 2006. Child Soldiers in Africa. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ignatieff, Michael. 2003. Empire Lite: Nation-Building in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. London: Random House.Google Scholar
  29. Lederach, John Paul. 1995. Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation across Cultures. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lederach, John Paul, and Preeti Thapa. 2012. Staying True in Nepal: Understanding Community Mediation through Action Research. Occasional Paper No. 10. The Asia Foundation.Google Scholar
  31. Lee, Sung Yong, and Alpaslan Özerdem. 2015. Local Ownership in International Peacebuilding: Key Theoretical and Practical Issues. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Leonardsson, Hanna, and Gustav Rudd. 2015. The ‘Local Turn’ in Peacebuilding: A Literature Review of Effective and Emancipatory Local Peacebuilding. Third World Quarterly 36 (5): 825–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mac Ginty, Roger. 2010. Hybrid Peace: The Interaction between Top-Down and Bottom-Up Peace. Security Dialogue 41 (4): 391–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. ———. 2011. International Peacebuilding and Local Resistance: Hybrid Forms of Peace. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. ———. 2013. Indicators+: A Proposal for Everyday Peace Indicators. Evaluation and Program Planning 36: 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mac Ginty, Roger, and Oliver P. Richmond. 2016. The Fallacy of Constructing Hybrid Political Orders: A Reappraisal of the Hybrid Turn in Peacebuilding? International Peacekeeping 23 (2): 219–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marten, Kimberly Zisk. 2004. Enforcing the Peace: Learning from the Imperial Past. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Millar, Gearoid. 2011. Local Evaluations of Justice through Truth Telling in Sierra Leone: Postwar Needs and Transitional Justice. Human Rights Review 12 (4): 515–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. ———. 2014. Disaggregated Hybridity: Why Hybrid Institutions Do Not Produce Predictable Experiences of Peace. Journal of Peace Research 51 (4): 501–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. ———. 2016. Respecting Complexity: Compound Friction and Unpredictability in Peacebuilding. In Peacebuilding and Friction: Global and Local Encounters in Post-Conflict Societies, ed. Annika Björkdahl, Kristine Höglund, Gearoid Millar, Jair van der Lijn, and Willemijn Verkoren, 32–47. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Millar, Gearoid, Jair van der Lijn, and Willemijn Verkoren. 2013. Peacebuilding Plans and Local Reconfigurations: Frictions between Imported Processes and Indigenous Practices. International Peacekeeping 20 (2): 137–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nordstrom, Carolyn. 1997. A Different Kind of War Story. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  43. ———. 2004. Shadows of War: Violence, Power, and International Profiteering in the Twenty-First Century. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  44. Paffenholz, Thania. 2015. Unpacking the Local Turn in Peacebuilding: A Critical Assessment Towards an Agenda for Future Research. Third World Quarterly 36 (5): 857–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Paris, Roland. 2004. At War’s End: Building Peace after Civil Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Peterson, Jenny H. 2012. A Conceptual Unpacking of Hybridity: Accounting for Notions of Power, Politics and Progress in Analyses of Aid-Driven Interfaces. Journal of Peacebuilding and Development 7 (2): 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Podelefsky, Aaron. 1990. Mediator Roles in Simbu Conflict Management. Ethnology 29 (1): 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ragin, Charles C. 1994. Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
  49. Richmond, Oliver P. 2006. Patterns of Peace. Global Society 20 (4): 367–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. ———. 2009. Becoming Liberal, Unbecoming Liberalism: Liberal-Local Hybridity via the Everyday as a Response to the Paradoxes of Liberal Peacebuilding. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 3 (3): 324–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. ———. 2011. De-Romanticising the Local, De-Mystifying the International: Hybridity in Timor Leste and the Solomon Islands. The Pacific Review 24 (1): 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. ———. 2012. Beyond Local Ownership in the Architecture of International Peacebuilding. Ethnopolitics 11 (4): 354–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Scheper-Hughes, Nancy, and Philippe Bourgois. 2003. Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  54. Sending, Ole Jacob. 2009. Why Peacebuilders Fail to Secure Ownership and be Sensitive to Context. NUPI Working Paper 755. Oslo: Norwegian Institute for International Affairs.Google Scholar
  55. Shaw, Rosalind. 2005. Rethinking Truth and Reconciliation Commissions: Lessons from Sierra Leone. United States Institute of Peace Special Report #130.Google Scholar
  56. ———. 2007. Displacing Violence: Making Pentecostal Memory in Postwar Sierra Leone. Cultural Anthropology 22 (1): 66–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sluka, Jeffrey A. 2009. In the Shadow of the Gun: ‘Not-War-Not-Peace’ and the Future of Conflict in Northern Ireland. Critique of Anthropology 29 (3): 279–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stiefel, Matthias. 2001. Participatory Action Research as a Tool for Peacebuilding: The WSP Experience. In Peacebuilding: A Field Guide, ed. Luc Reychler and Thania Paffenholz, 265–276. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  59. Sylvester, Christine. 2012. War Experiences/War Practices/War Theory. Millennium 40 (3): 483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. ———. 2013. War as Experience: Contributions from International Relations and Feminist Analysis. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Tadjbakhsh, Shahrbanou. 2009. Conflicted Outcomes and Values. (Neo)Liberal Peace in Central Asia and Afghanistan. International Peacekeeping 16 (5): 635–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Theidon, Kimberly. 2000. “How We Learned to Kill Our Brother”?: Memory, Morality and Reconciliation in Peru. Bulletin of the French Institute of Andean Studies 29 (3): 539–554.Google Scholar
  63. ———. 2013. Intimate Enemies: Violence and Reconciliation in Peru. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt. 2005. Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Vigh, Henrik. 2006. Navigating Terrains of War: Youth and Soldiering in Guinea-Bissau. New York, NY: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  66. Vrasti, Wanda. 2008. The Strange Case of Ethnography and International Relations. Millennium 37 (2): 279–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Willis, Paul. 2013. The Ethnographic Imagination. Cambridge: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  68. Wilson, Richard. 2001. The Politics of Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa: Legitimizing the Post-Apartheid State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gearoid Millar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologyInstitute for Conflict, Transition, and Peace Research, University of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations