IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ctwqxx/v43y2022i4p954-962.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The bumpy road of peace research: reflections on sharing mistakes in fieldwork

Author

Listed:
  • Karen Brounéus
  • Prakash Bhattarai
  • Erika Forsberg

Abstract

As medicine strives to find cures to illness, peace researchers strive to find cures for war-broken societies. To this end, we depend on learning from people who have survived political violence, in sensitive conflict settings. There is increasing awareness of the imperative of ethical reflection before, during and after ‘fieldwork’. However, the rocky road of doing the actual fieldwork in conflict settings is seldom part of our polished articles. The messiness, the ethical dilemmas, and our hesitations, mistakes and regrets remain hidden. We argue this needs to change. We believe it is time for conflict research to follow in the novel self-reflexive footsteps of neuroscience and psychology, and build a research culture of reflection and honesty, which includes the sharing of mistakes. If not, we will inevitably continue making the same mistakes over and over again. Reflexive honesty will make our research sustainable ethically, scientifically and financially. Our aim with this article is to open such a conversation by sharing some recent experiences of fieldwork in Nepal: what went well, what we did wrong and what we learned in this process. Hopefully, by sharing our lessons learned we can together, in time, make conflict research safer, richer and more meaningful – for everyone involved.

Suggested Citation

  • Karen Brounéus & Prakash Bhattarai & Erika Forsberg, 2022. "The bumpy road of peace research: reflections on sharing mistakes in fieldwork," Third World Quarterly, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(4), pages 954-962, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:ctwqxx:v:43:y:2022:i:4:p:954-962
    DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2022.2040979
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01436597.2022.2040979
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01436597.2022.2040979?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:ctwqxx:v:43:y:2022:i:4:p:954-962. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/ctwq .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.