Local Knowledges in International Peacebuilding: Acquisition, Filtering, and Systematic Bias

IF 3.1 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS International Studies Review Pub Date : 2024-11-15 DOI:10.1093/isr/viae047
Sarah von Billerbeck, Katharina P Coleman, Steffen Eckhard, Benjamin Zyla
{"title":"Local Knowledges in International Peacebuilding: Acquisition, Filtering, and Systematic Bias","authors":"Sarah von Billerbeck, Katharina P Coleman, Steffen Eckhard, Benjamin Zyla","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is widespread consensus among peacebuilding practitioners and scholars on the importance of integrating local knowledge into the design, planning, and implementation of international peace interventions. However, the concept of local knowledge remains undertheorized, and the dynamics of local knowledge integration in international activities have not yet been fully explored. This paper reconceptualizes “local knowledge” in peacebuilding as local knowledges in the plural, highlighting seven categories of relevant local knowledge and the contestation within each. We then draw on organizational theory to identify the processes by which particular types of local knowledge become more or less likely to be incorporated into internationally led peacebuilding activities. Specifically, we argue that knowledge incorporation consists of two stages: acquisition and filtering. In both, international actors control who is able to contribute knowledges and which knowledges are recognized. Systematic biases result: knowledges that confirm previously held beliefs or that simplify complexity are incorporated more regularly. We illustrate our argument by focusing on the UN, but suggest that our findings apply to other international actors, including non-governmental organizations, and extend beyond peacebuilding.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Studies Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae047","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is widespread consensus among peacebuilding practitioners and scholars on the importance of integrating local knowledge into the design, planning, and implementation of international peace interventions. However, the concept of local knowledge remains undertheorized, and the dynamics of local knowledge integration in international activities have not yet been fully explored. This paper reconceptualizes “local knowledge” in peacebuilding as local knowledges in the plural, highlighting seven categories of relevant local knowledge and the contestation within each. We then draw on organizational theory to identify the processes by which particular types of local knowledge become more or less likely to be incorporated into internationally led peacebuilding activities. Specifically, we argue that knowledge incorporation consists of two stages: acquisition and filtering. In both, international actors control who is able to contribute knowledges and which knowledges are recognized. Systematic biases result: knowledges that confirm previously held beliefs or that simplify complexity are incorporated more regularly. We illustrate our argument by focusing on the UN, but suggest that our findings apply to other international actors, including non-governmental organizations, and extend beyond peacebuilding.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
国际建设和平中的地方知识:获取、过滤和系统性偏见
在将当地知识整合到国际和平干预的设计、规划和实施中,建设和平的实践者和学者之间存在着广泛的共识。然而,本地知识的概念仍未被充分理论化,国际活动中本地知识整合的动态也尚未得到充分探索。本文将建设和平中的“地方知识”重新定义为复数形式的地方知识,强调了七类相关的地方知识及其内部的争论。然后,我们利用组织理论来确定特定类型的当地知识或多或少可能被纳入国际领导的建设和平活动的过程。具体来说,我们认为知识整合包括两个阶段:获取和过滤。在这两方面,国际行动者都控制着谁能够贡献知识以及哪些知识得到承认。系统偏见的结果是:确认先前持有的信念或简化复杂性的知识被更有规律地吸收。我们通过关注联合国来说明我们的论点,但建议我们的研究结果适用于其他国际行为体,包括非政府组织,并延伸到建设和平之外。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: The International Studies Review (ISR) provides a window on current trends and research in international studies worldwide. Published four times a year, ISR is intended to help: (a) scholars engage in the kind of dialogue and debate that will shape the field of international studies in the future, (b) graduate and undergraduate students understand major issues in international studies and identify promising opportunities for research, and (c) educators keep up with new ideas and research. To achieve these objectives, ISR includes analytical essays, reviews of new books, and a forum in each issue. Essays integrate scholarship, clarify debates, provide new perspectives on research, identify new directions for the field, and present insights into scholarship in various parts of the world.
期刊最新文献
Disentangling the Nexus of Nuclear Weapons and Climate Change—A Research Agenda Practices of (De)Legitimation in World Politics Local Knowledges in International Peacebuilding: Acquisition, Filtering, and Systematic Bias Fifty Shades of Deprivation: Disaggregating Types of Economic Disadvantage in Studies of Terrorism Postcards from the Pandemic: Women, Intersectionality, and Gendered Risks in the Global COVID-19 Pandemic
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1