Abstract
This chapter reviews the findings of the volume. It shows how peace psychology emerged from the parent discipline of psychology, and attention is drawn to the scientific and ethical limitations of accepting the disciplinary boundaries. Future developments in peace psychology may occur as part of interdisciplinary peace research. Extending research to wider and more diverse populations will necessitate using a variety of methods, including postcolonial approaches, participatory and workshop methods, using the arts and technological innovation. Through the use of workshop methods and negotiation skills in research, the relationship between research and practice can be tightened. Recommendations from the chapter authors include using integrated designs to study systems, collecting macrosystem level data (both quantitative and qualitative) as well as individual and group data, strengthening the role of peace psychology in the international realm and writing with impact in diverse forums. The need to develop more complex statistical models to measure cycles of violence, conflict and peace and the complexities of social interaction are discussed.
The volume challenges the assumption of peace as being passive and simply the absence of violence, not only in the conception of peace, but also in the methodology of inquiry. The authors demonstrate that peace research can be active, courageous and creative. The different contributors to the book show how the values of peace and the principles of sound scholarship can be combined in research. Peaceful research can produce results that contribute to peacebuilding in the future and also model peaceful processes in the present, bringing direct benefit to participants. Peace research is participatory and emancipatory, changing the research relationship so researchers and participants work together to create new knowledge and find news ways to build peace. The conclusion emphasises that peacebuilding is a collective endeavour, integrating the efforts of researchers from different disciplines, working in teams, and treating participants as equals, who can be partners in creating knowledge. Peacebuilding is about building human constructive relationships in the individual, group, community, society and international level and so respect for others will permeate each stage of the research process to create peace research by peaceful means.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Amsler, S. S., & Bolsmann, C. (2012). University ranking as social exclusion. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(2), 283–301.
Arnett, J. (2008). The neglected 95 %: Why American psychologists need to be come less American. American Psychologist, 63(7), 602–614.
Balvin, N., & Kashima, Y. (2012). Hidden obstacles to reconciliation in Australia: The persistence of stereotypes. In D. Bretherton & N. Balvin (Eds.), Peace psychology in Australia (pp. 197–220). New York: Springer.
Bretherton, D., & Bornstein, J. (2003). The qualities of peacemakers: What can we learn from Nobel Peace Prize Winners about managing conflict? In W. J. Pammer & J. Killian (Eds.), Handbook of conflict management (pp. 33–49). Dayton: Marcel Dekker Inc.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. USA: Harvard University Press.
Christie, D. (2006). What is peace psychology the psychology of? Journal of Social Issues, 62, 1–17.
Cole, M. (2006). Internationalization in psychology: We need it now more than ever. American Psychology, 61, 904–917.
Denmark, F. L. (1998). Women and psychology: An international perspective. American Psychologist, 53, 465–473.
Deutsch, M., Coleman, P. T. & Marcus, E. C. (2006). (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice. CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics & contestations. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press.
Fisher, R. (2006). Intergroup conflict. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution (pp. 176–196). CA: Jossey-Bass.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.
Galtung, J. (1985). Twenty five years of peace research: Ten challenges and some responses. Journal of Peace Research, 22(2), 141–158.
Grewal, R., Dearden, J. A., & Lilien, G. L. (2008). The University rankings game: Modeling the competition among Universities for ranking. The American Statistician, 62(3), 232–237.
Guttman, L. (1947). The Cornell technique for scale and intensity analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 7, 247–279.
Hergenhahn, B. R. (2009). An introduction to the history of psychology (6th ed.), Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Kelly, G. A. (1977). Personal construct theory and the psychotherapeutic interview. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1 (4), 355–362.
Kressel, K. (2006). Mediation revisited. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution (pp. 726–756). CA: Jossey-Bass.
Locke, W. (2011). The Institutionalization of Rankings: Managing Status Anxiety in an Increasingly Marketized Environment. In C. J. Shin, R. K. Toutkoushian, & U. Teichler (Eds.), University Rankings: The changing academy—The changing academic profession in international comparative perspective (pp. 201–228). New York: Springer.
Lusher, D. (2012). Constructing masculinity: Understanding the connection between masculinity and violence. In D. Bretherton & N. Balvin (Eds). Peace psychology in Australia (pp. 161–174). New York: Springer.
Niemeyer, S., Ercan, S.A., & Hartz-Karp, J. (2013). Understanding deliberative citizens: The application of Q methodology to deliberation on policy issues, Operant Subjectivity, 36(2), 114–34.
Paris, D. (2010). ‘A friend who understand fully’: notes on humanizing research in a multi-ethnic community. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 24(2), 137–149.
Psychologists for Social Responsibility (n.d.) Enemy images: A resource manual for reducing enmity. http://www.psysr.org/about/pubs_resources/Enemyimagesmanual.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2015.
Raider, E., Coleman, S., & Gerson, J. (2006). In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution (pp. 695–725). CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ramsbotham, O., Woodhouse, T., & Miall, H. (2011). Contemporary conflict resolution: The prevention, management and transformation of deadly conflicts (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Polity.
Sande, G.N., Goethals, G.R., Ferrari, L. & Worth, L.T. (1989). Value-guided attributions: Maintaining the moral self-image and the diabolical enemy image. Journal of Social Issues, 45(2), 91–118.
Wilkinson, S. (2012). Having your say: Communication dynamics in effective mediation. In D. Bretherton & N. Balvin (Eds.), Peace psychology in Australia (pp. 175–196). New York: Springer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bretherton, D., Fang Law, S. (2015). Conclusion: Peaceful Research by Peaceful Means. In: Bretherton, D., Law, S. (eds) Methodologies in Peace Psychology. Peace Psychology Book Series, vol 26. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18395-4_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18395-4_22
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-18394-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-18395-4
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)