Pub Date : 2021-09-06DOI: 10.1515/9783110624625-005
Khaled Ehsan
{"title":"Exploring Power Dynamics of Religious Leaders","authors":"Khaled Ehsan","doi":"10.1515/9783110624625-005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110624625-005","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":316665,"journal":{"name":"Evaluating Interreligious Peacebuilding and Dialogue","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115517057","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-06DOI: 10.1515/9783110624625-007
Michelle G. Garred, Rebecca Herrington, E. Hume
With funding from the GHR Foundation, the Alliance for Peacebuilding (AfP) and its partners CDA Collaborative Learning Projects (CDA) and Search for Common Ground (SFCG), in collaboration with a Global Advisory Council, led the Effective Inter-Religious Action in Peacebuilding Program (EIAP) project between 2015 and 2017.2 The project’s substantive learnings to date are captured in its primary publication: Faith Matters: A Guide for the Designing, Monitoring & Evaluation of Inter-Religious Action for Peace3 (hereafter referred to as the Faith Matters Guide). This chapter complements the Faith Matters Guide by exploring the underlying human learning processes that made the substantive learning possible. In bringing together representatives of two very different stakeholder audiences, evaluators and inter-religious actors, this project set in motion a mutually transformative exchange. Both groups are essential for progress, and yet previous communication and collaboration had been minimal. Therefore this chapter analyses what inter-religious peacebuilders and evaluators learned from each other during EIAP, unpacking the victories, tensions and challenges they encountered, to help illuminate the next phase of effort. The chapter also identifies real-world ways forward in developing evaluation approaches that both evaluators and inter-religious peacebuilders can embrace.4
{"title":"Linking Evaluators and Inter-Religious Peacebuilders","authors":"Michelle G. Garred, Rebecca Herrington, E. Hume","doi":"10.1515/9783110624625-007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110624625-007","url":null,"abstract":"With funding from the GHR Foundation, the Alliance for Peacebuilding (AfP) and its partners CDA Collaborative Learning Projects (CDA) and Search for Common Ground (SFCG), in collaboration with a Global Advisory Council, led the Effective Inter-Religious Action in Peacebuilding Program (EIAP) project between 2015 and 2017.2 The project’s substantive learnings to date are captured in its primary publication: Faith Matters: A Guide for the Designing, Monitoring & Evaluation of Inter-Religious Action for Peace3 (hereafter referred to as the Faith Matters Guide). This chapter complements the Faith Matters Guide by exploring the underlying human learning processes that made the substantive learning possible. In bringing together representatives of two very different stakeholder audiences, evaluators and inter-religious actors, this project set in motion a mutually transformative exchange. Both groups are essential for progress, and yet previous communication and collaboration had been minimal. Therefore this chapter analyses what inter-religious peacebuilders and evaluators learned from each other during EIAP, unpacking the victories, tensions and challenges they encountered, to help illuminate the next phase of effort. The chapter also identifies real-world ways forward in developing evaluation approaches that both evaluators and inter-religious peacebuilders can embrace.4","PeriodicalId":316665,"journal":{"name":"Evaluating Interreligious Peacebuilding and Dialogue","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116200570","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-06DOI: 10.1515/9783110624625-008
Shana R. Cohen
In 2011, I began working at the Woolf Institute, which focuses on interfaith relations in the United Kingdom and is based in Cambridge. Shortly after starting the job, the Director of the Institute and I sat down with a professor at Cambridge to ask about pursuing a research project on inter faith dialogue. “Interfaith dialogue is not a field of study,” the professor retorted, “it’s a practice.” Perhaps a year later, I attended a lecture by one of the most well-known scholars of faith and social action in the UK, Adam Dinham. Professor Dinham labelled interfaith dialogue “A pragmatic cobbling together of people who already want to work together”. Referring to the 2007 Labour government initiative Face to Face/ Side by Side, he commented that it had disappeared under the Coalition government “entirely without comment.” This initiative, launched by the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Hazel Blears, was intended to provide an “opportunity to reflect on how Government should support this [interfaith relations], where and in what circumstances interfaith works best and how we can work in partnerships with faith and non-faith-based communities and organizations” (Blears 2007). For Dinham, government consultations like this reflected the interests of “policymakers more than lived reality.”1 In practice, without committed leadership, buildings, and basic tenets, forums could only attract those already deeply motivated on a personal level. They offered little for those individuals who rejected communication with other faiths. I often thought about Professor Dinham’s comment when listening to the anxiety and discomfort of interfaith activists in the years following the meeting. These activists frequently repeated an observation that dialogue had become about ‘Bagels and Samosas’, or food and entertainment, rather than more profound efforts to improve understanding. This disillusionment was echoed amongst policymakers and in policy documents, which cited slow integration of migrant communities and patterns of segregation between minority and majority communities as evidence of the failure of interfaith dialogue. The 2016 Casey Review, a report on ethnic and religious diversity in the UK commissioned
{"title":"Assessing the Impact of Interfaith Initiatives","authors":"Shana R. Cohen","doi":"10.1515/9783110624625-008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110624625-008","url":null,"abstract":"In 2011, I began working at the Woolf Institute, which focuses on interfaith relations in the United Kingdom and is based in Cambridge. Shortly after starting the job, the Director of the Institute and I sat down with a professor at Cambridge to ask about pursuing a research project on inter faith dialogue. “Interfaith dialogue is not a field of study,” the professor retorted, “it’s a practice.” Perhaps a year later, I attended a lecture by one of the most well-known scholars of faith and social action in the UK, Adam Dinham. Professor Dinham labelled interfaith dialogue “A pragmatic cobbling together of people who already want to work together”. Referring to the 2007 Labour government initiative Face to Face/ Side by Side, he commented that it had disappeared under the Coalition government “entirely without comment.” This initiative, launched by the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Hazel Blears, was intended to provide an “opportunity to reflect on how Government should support this [interfaith relations], where and in what circumstances interfaith works best and how we can work in partnerships with faith and non-faith-based communities and organizations” (Blears 2007). For Dinham, government consultations like this reflected the interests of “policymakers more than lived reality.”1 In practice, without committed leadership, buildings, and basic tenets, forums could only attract those already deeply motivated on a personal level. They offered little for those individuals who rejected communication with other faiths. I often thought about Professor Dinham’s comment when listening to the anxiety and discomfort of interfaith activists in the years following the meeting. These activists frequently repeated an observation that dialogue had become about ‘Bagels and Samosas’, or food and entertainment, rather than more profound efforts to improve understanding. This disillusionment was echoed amongst policymakers and in policy documents, which cited slow integration of migrant communities and patterns of segregation between minority and majority communities as evidence of the failure of interfaith dialogue. The 2016 Casey Review, a report on ethnic and religious diversity in the UK commissioned","PeriodicalId":316665,"journal":{"name":"Evaluating Interreligious Peacebuilding and Dialogue","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129813138","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-06DOI: 10.1515/9783110624625-003
Reina C. Neufeldt
{"title":"Vying for Good","authors":"Reina C. Neufeldt","doi":"10.1515/9783110624625-003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110624625-003","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":316665,"journal":{"name":"Evaluating Interreligious Peacebuilding and Dialogue","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122492134","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-06DOI: 10.1515/9783110624625-004
H. Pul
{"title":"When My Peace Is Not Your Peace","authors":"H. Pul","doi":"10.1515/9783110624625-004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110624625-004","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":316665,"journal":{"name":"Evaluating Interreligious Peacebuilding and Dialogue","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130518995","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-06DOI: 10.1515/9783110624625-006
D. Steele, Ricardo Wilson-Grau
Many interventions work to build peace and prevent conflict by creating change in people ’ s attitudes, thought processes, and relationships. In such cases, it may be necessary to collect attitudinal data, conduct interviews,workshops, or focus group discussions with stakeholders, or carry out surveys to collect quantitative data. Measuring intangible changes in areas such as perceptions through interviews requires the same triangulation vetting as other types of data. require random controlled trials (RCTs) using a “ treatment ” group and one or more comparison groups. In these evaluation modes, causation in religious peacebuilding work would be determined by comparing the results of interreligious peacebuilding in one population (of individuals, groups, communities, or countries) with the same results in a similar population not subject to
{"title":"Transcendence and the Evaluation of Faith-Based Peacebuilding","authors":"D. Steele, Ricardo Wilson-Grau","doi":"10.1515/9783110624625-006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110624625-006","url":null,"abstract":"Many interventions work to build peace and prevent conflict by creating change in people ’ s attitudes, thought processes, and relationships. In such cases, it may be necessary to collect attitudinal data, conduct interviews,workshops, or focus group discussions with stakeholders, or carry out surveys to collect quantitative data. Measuring intangible changes in areas such as perceptions through interviews requires the same triangulation vetting as other types of data. require random controlled trials (RCTs) using a “ treatment ” group and one or more comparison groups. In these evaluation modes, causation in religious peacebuilding work would be determined by comparing the results of interreligious peacebuilding in one population (of individuals, groups, communities, or countries) with the same results in a similar population not subject to","PeriodicalId":316665,"journal":{"name":"Evaluating Interreligious Peacebuilding and Dialogue","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132264179","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：