Advertisement

Conclusion: The Constructive Tension of Interdisciplinary Endeavours

  • Gearoid Millar
Chapter
Part of the Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies book series (RCS)

Abstract

This chapter seeks to bring together the diverse lessons provided throughout the volume. The chapter first returns to the five key strengths of the Ethnographic Peace Research (EPR) approach as described in the Introduction to describe how they are related and to what extent they are facilitative elements, required elements, or potentials of an EPR approach. A preliminary definition of EPR is then provided based on these distinctions. The chapter then progresses to address an interdisciplinary tension which became clear over the course of editing this volume, which evidences the challenges of interdisciplinary work, and which highlights the difficulties faced in the effort to consolidate a robust EPR agenda. The chapter concludes, however, by noting the need to see this as a generative tension and something to build on. The process of developing a new approach to Peace Research which can forward the local turn will not be simple, but it is required.

References

  1. Brown, M. Anne. 2013. Anthropology and Peacebuilding. In Routledge Handbook of Peacebuilding, ed. R. Mac Ginty, 132–146. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Chambers, Erve. 1987. Applied Anthropology in the Post-Vietnam Era: Anticipations and Ironies. Annual Review of Anthropology 16: 309–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chandler, David. 2013. Peacebuilding and the Politics of Non-Linearity: Rethinking ‘Hidden’ Agency and ‘Resistance’. Peacebuilding 1 (1): 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clifford, James, and George E. Marcus. 1986. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. Ferraro, Gary, and Susan Andreatta. 2015. Cultural Anthropology: An Applied Perspective. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  6. Holmes, Douglas R., and George E. Marcus. 2008. Collaboration Today and the Re-Imagination of the Classic Scene of Fieldwork Encounter. Collaborative Anthropologies 1: 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ingold, Tim. 2011. Being Alive. Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 2014. That’s Enough about Ethnography! HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 4 (1): 383–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lattuca, Lisa R. 2001. Creating Interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary Research and Teaching among College and University Faculty. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lewis, Diane. 1973. Anthropology and Colonialism. Current Anthropology 14 (5): 581–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Marcus, George E. 1998. Ethnography through Thick and Thin. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Meeth, Richard L. 1978. Interdisciplinary Studies: A Matter of Definition. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 10 (7): 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Millar, Gearoid. 2010. Local Evaluations of Truth Telling in Sierra Leone: Getting at ‘Why’ Though a Qualitative Case Study Analysis. International Journal of Transitional Justice 4 (4): 477–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ———. 2011. Between Western Theory and Local Practice: Cultural Impediments to Truth-Telling in Sierra Leone. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 29 (2): 177–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ———. 2012a. ‘Our Brothers who went to the Bush’: Post-Identity Conflict and the Experience of Reconciliation in Sierra Leone. Journal of Peace Research 49 (5): 717–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ———. 2012b. ‘Ah Lef ma Case fo God’: Religious Belief and Personal Autonomy in Sierra Leone’s Postwar Reconciliation. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 18 (2): 131–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ———. 2014. An Ethnographic Approach to Peacebuilding: Understanding Local Experiences in Transitional States. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2015a. Investing in Peace?: Foreign Direct Investment as Economic Justice in Sierra Leone. Third World Quarterly 36 (9): 1700–1716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ———. 2015b. Performative Memory and Re-Victimization: Truth-Telling and Provocation in Sierra Leone. Memory Studies 8 (2): 242–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ———. 2016a. Local Experiences of Liberal Peace: Marketization and Emerging Conflict Dynamics in Sierra Leone. Journal of Peace Research 53 (4): 569–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ———. 2016b. Knowledge and Control in the Contemporary Land Rush: Making Local Land Legible and Corporate Power Applicable in Rural Sierra Leone. Journal of Agrarian Change. 16 (2): 206–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moran, Joe. 2002. Interdisciplinarity. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Paffenholz, Thania. 2015. Unpacking the Local Turn in Peacebuilding: A Critical Assessment Towards an Agenda for Future Research. Third World Quarterly 36 (5): 857–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Paris, Roland. 2010. Saving Liberal Peacebuilding. Review of International Studies 36 (2): 337–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pels, Peter. 2008. What has Anthropology Learned from the Anthropology of Colonialism. Social Anthropology 16 (3): 280–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Richmond, Oliver P. 2011. De-Romanticising the Local, De-Mystifying the International: Hybridity in Timor Leste and the Solomon Islands. The Pacific Review 24 (1): 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Robben, Antonius C.G.M. 2009. Anthropology and the Iraq War: An Uncomfortable Engagement. Anthropology Today 25 (1): 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rubenstein, Robert A. 1986. Reflections on Action Anthropology: Some Developmental Dynamics of an Anthropological Tradition. Human Organization 45 (3): 270–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schensul, Jean, Marlene Berg, Daniel Schensul, and Sandra Syndlo. 2004. Core Elements of Participatory Action Research for Educational Empowerment and Risk Prevention in Urban Youth. Practicing Anthropology 26 (2): 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schierenbeck, Isabell. 2015. Beyond the Local Turn Divide: Lessons Learnt, Relearnt and Unlearnt. Third World Quarterly 36 (5): 1023–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stodulka, Thomas. 2015. Emotion Work, Ethnography, and Survival Strategies on the Streets of Yogyakarta. Medical Anthropology 34 (1): 84–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tax, Sol. 1975. Action Anthropology. Current Anthropology 16 (4): 514–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Theidon, Kimberly. 2006. Justice in Transition: The Micropolitics of Reconciliation in Postwar Peru. Journal of Conflict Resolution 50 (3): 433–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thomson Klein, Julie. 1990. Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, & Practice. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Webster, Steven. 1986. Realism and Reification in the Ethnographic Genre. Critique of Anthropology 6 (1): 39–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zenker, Olaf, and Karsten Kumoll. 2010. Beyond Writing Culture: Current Intersections of Epistemology and Representational Practices. New York, NY: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gearoid Millar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologyInstitute for Conflict, Transition, and Peace Research, University of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations