Summary
To help people monitor accurately whether their communities are safer (more peaceful) over time or not, this post summarizes the initial experience with a method that Future Generations is testing. If Everyday Peace Indicators (EPIs) prove to be relevant and reliable, then we plan to continue to refine the methodology and utilize it in other sectors, such as conservation and health. The EPIs that are identified span across many aspects of life and may include indicators such as the number of religious and cultural events and rituals that are performed or the number of people who are actively working (men and/or women) in a community.
 |
This map shows the eight countries where research into Everday Peace
Indicators was conducted.
|
Background
In January 2017, researchers in eight countries
(Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Guyana, Nepal, Nigeria, Somaliland, South Sudan, and
Uganda) set out to understand how urban and rural communities as well as local
peacebuilding experts experience and determine that they can measure peace in
their everyday lives.
Typically, methods used to study peace yield complex,
scholarly results that are not directly relevant, useful, or sometimes even
intended for communities to understand. Through development of ‘indicators of
peace,’ this project, through local participation and local ownership, seeks to
produce sensitive local understanding of interventions in peacebuilding and
conflict transformation. The assertion is that communities are best placed to
measure and interpret their own peace. The research methodology builds on prior
and ongoing research on Everyday Peace Indicators (EPIs)
at the United States Institute for Peace (USIP).
As lead researchers on prior EPI work—Pamina Firchow and
Roger Mac Ginty—describe this approach as:[i]
[Developing
indicators of peace] is participatory action research that seeks to find out
people’s perceptions of their own conflict rather than impose narratives on
them. The research asks local people, through focus groups, to develop their
own set of indicators.…
Future Generations is also particularly interested in this
methodology due to our history of peacebuilding research and our peacebuilding
concentration within our Master of Arts degree program. There is in-house
research and academic work that the university wants to build on. Development
of indicators for peace is consistent with the community change ideals that the
graduate school has been teaching. Moreover, development of indicators of peace
is in line with what is taught and practiced in SEED-SCALE. The university is
keen to pursue a research agenda in developing indicators of peace, an effort
that will be augmented by the partnership it has begun to develop with USIP.
Methods
This study included focus group discussions in at least two
sites in each country. The sites were selected to represent urban and rural
contexts within the country and were selected based on communities where our
research team had connections and was able to establish and build on trusting
relationships in order to undertake this participatory research. A total of 20
sites are represented in the study findings including four sites in Guyana and
four sites in Afghanistan and two in each of the other countries.
At each site, focus groups were held separately with men,
women, boys and girls—expect in Nepal where the men and women were divided into
two groups each based on caste and youth were merged into one group for each
site in order to be responsive to social norms and ensure an in-depth,
productive dialogue. The purpose of these focus groups was to hold an open
brainstorming discussion with each of these demographic groups in each
community about how they experience peace—first very broadly and then
progressively honing in on tangible and then countable things from their
everyday lives that could indicate whether their community was becoming more or
less peaceful over time. A total of 80 focus groups were held across the 20
sites.
After the initial focus groups were completed, the
researcher(s) at least site compiled all of the discussions into one long list
of potential KIs for peace in that community. Then, representatives from each
of the initial focus groups were brought together to discuss, refine, and then
vote using a multi-voting process on a focused list of about 10 countable
indicators that best reflected peace in their communities.
In parallel with the focus groups, a series of key informant
interviews with local peacebuilding experts were conducted in each country.
Respondents included university faculty, government officials, law enforcement
officials, nonprofit organization leaders, United Nations representatives,
youth and youth advocates, and others.
Between four and seven interviews were conducted with a variety of different
respondents in each country for a total of 35 interviews. The results from the
interviews and focus groups were compared and contrasted for each site and
often showed similar alignment on the priority issues, but different
understanding of each one.
Selected Findings
The indicators identified in this research spanned many
sectors and nearly every aspect of everyday life as well as the day-to-day
experience of some of the large-scale conflicts that often claim center stage in
the global media. While peace remains a
complex, sometimes intangible, and multi-faceted concept, many of the
indicators that were identified were actually related to the ability to do very
basic activities necessary for daily life, and of relevance in pretty much
every community around the world. Three common themes related to the findings
across sites are summarized here.
Employment: Being able to access employment or a way
to support and sustain a family was a frequently raised theme. This was
important for men, women, and youth and valued at both the household level as
well as in larger savings groups or cooperative efforts among community
members. One report noted:
Coming
together in the form of groups was rare. The groups would become victims of
attack by warriors. With peace now, there are many social and economic groups
coming up. For instance, there are village savings and loan associations. (Uganda)
Roads and other infrastructure: Access to communities
by road as well as other infrastructure such as availability of electricity and
internet services was a theme across many sites.
If
[the] government is focusing on investment on infrastructure can be an
indicator of peace. That means if the government assigns more budget on it… and
less on military budget. (Ethiopia)
Infrastructure
services…facilitate people’s activities for growth and development thereby
contributing greatly towards their presence of peace. (Uganda)
Education: Access to schools, functional school
systems, equal opportunity for boys and girls for education, educational
attainment of youth, and expansion of fields of study and private school
opportunities all featured prominently among identified indicators. One report
described the linkage between education and other contributors to peace and
conflict:
If
the school at least works 4-8 hours a day based on the grades/classes children
will be busy with learning and progressing, but if not, children will be at
risk of pulling and children clashes which in most cases escalate to
parents-to- parents fight. (South
Sudan)
Traditional and culture: Often, conflict disrupts
traditional practices and rhythms. A theme emerged through this research on the
importance of communities being able to carry out traditional festivals, rites
of passage, and religious celebrations. Some findings also noted that new
cultural practices, such as creating new songs about violence and revenge,
could be a sign of worsening conflict.
Cultural
and religious sites are the binding factors of social cohesion, but after the
10 year long conflict people believes that people are falling apart and peace
can be attained when you go to the temples and be part of the cultural events. (Nepal)
Discussion
The concept of peace has many different meanings. Even for a
number of the researchers who implemented this study are already engaged in
some kind of work related to conflict resolution, youth and women’s
empowerment, anti-radicalization, and related efforts, they noted gaining
additional understandings of what peace means to people in the communities
where they work and to local experts around them. Throughout the process of
conducting this research, many of the researchers commented on how they gained new,
different, or more nuanced and in-depth understandings of peace from talking
with communities and local experts. A number of new relationships, potentials
for collaboration, and dialogues within communities were also sparked by this
participatory inquiry.
One of the recurring challenges within this research study
was that the identified indicators were so specific to the local context. In a
number of countries, similar or identical indicators were proposed in the urban
and rural sites, but their meaning was different or even opposite. An example
of this is schools being open in Afghanistan—in urban areas, this was a sign of
relative peace that children could attend school but in the rural area where
this study was conducted, schools being open indicated that the territory was
being occupied and the schools managed by the occupiers and was therefore not a
sign of peace.
Next Steps
The research team is developing a full report and also a
peer-reviewed journal article in the coming months. In addition, the
Africa-based sites are planning to put together a regionally-focused policy
brief targeting African decision-makers and something that can be distributed
in paper format as well as electronically. Finally, each implementer of the
methodology has identified key next steps to directly facilitate that the
identified indicators get utilized. Some examples of the kinds of utilization
that are planned include:
1.
Building the most relevant and salient
indicators into community workplans, projects and project evaluations, and
organizational strategic plans
2.
Advocacy with local leaders, including
government officials, religious leaders, and law enforcement, for local peacebuilding
priorities and ways to track progress on them
3.
Training and awareness-raising among
peace-related service providers (law enforcement and other social services) and
communities at large about local understandings of peace and conflict and
dialogue about how to address local issues
4.
Seek additional resources—funding as well as
mentorship, time and other resources—to enable communities to work to improve
on the indicators that are the most important to them
[i]
Mac Ginty, R. and Firchow, P. Everyday
Peace Indicators: Capturing Local Voices Through Surveys. Shared Space: A Research Journal on Peace, Conflict, and Community
Relations in Northern Ireland.
___________________________
Post by Dr. Meike Schleiff with input from the researcher team members*
Meike brings a background of community-based mentoring, teaching, and program implementation to Future Generations University. She has worked extensively with communities and young leaders in Haiti through GROW project, the non-profit that she co-founded with Haitian colleagues, and has also been engaged in community development planning, implementation, evaluation, and training in Guyana, Ugandan India, and the Appalachian region in the USA
*Vincent Abura, Chiranjibi Bhandari, Abdishakur Hassan-Kayd, Amanullah Hotak, Fisseha Getahun, Anthony Kadoma, Firew Kefyalew, Omer Marouf, Andualem Mitiku, Sushila Chattergee Nepali, Uchenna Onyeizu, and Rohan Sagar (Picutred as listed from left to right below:)