ABSTRACT
In the first chapter, I describe the purpose and process of the Action Evaluation (AE) methodology developed over the past two decades to systematically inquire into questions of success and failure in the field of what is commonly known as “Conflict Resolution.” I suggest this naming gives both the wrong frame for the field and may even be part of why nearly four decades after its formal founding as an academic and applied field in its own right (not just a derivative of other fields), it may be perceived as failing more than succeeding. I along with others are seeking to rebrand the field to be more consistent with its best aspirations along with more realism about its effectiveness in practice. That is, as a field we view conflict as an opportunity for creative change and development. We do not, for the most part, believe in or aspire to the “end of conflict.” Thus “Resolution” is misleading both conceptually and practically. Thus, this chapter problematizes these questions – what is success in the field, who defines it, and how? It seeks to provide one set of methodological answers that are born out of practices and values of the field – most of all around notions of ownership and participation – and aims at improving and deepening the capacity of the field to take on questions of success in nuanced and contextually appropriate ways. Without this, I claim, the field will remain relatively under-developed and unrecognized – as it seems to be more today than it was a decade or two ago in its early halcyon days of can-do spirit and must-do ideals. Indeed, as the field began to coalesce as a systematic set of theories and practices in the early 1980s, ideally to be synthesized and coordinated in to a robust field, there was a great sense of an adventurous unfolding in new paths to social, cultural and political peace between individuals, groups, organizations and nations. Today, there is a meandering sense of “where to and how?” The field unfortunately seems to be reflecting a current global malaise about the present and future rather than providing coherence and leadership. Systematically defining, promoting and assessing success in our field, I claim, will help the field to be more grounded, legitimated and effective.
