The fields of peacebuilding and development continue to operate differently in diagnosing destructive intergroup conflicts, as demonstrated by conflict analysis methods versus conflict assessment frameworks. This article juxtaposes conflict analysis, as illustrated by a problem-solving workshop on the Cyprus conflict, with a specialised conflict assessment workshop on an intergroup conflict in India. A comparative analysis based on participant observation in each workshop revealed basic similarities, but these were outweighed by important differences primarily related to differing assumptions about conflict causation (relationships versus structures). The implications for greater cross-fertilisation and the improvement of practice in both fields are identified.
Conflict analysis has been developed by conflict resolution scholars educated in conflict dynamics and processes. Conflict assessment – which generally places greater emphasis on context and less on conflict processes – has grown independently out of the practitioner world of humanitarian aid (relief and development).
The study reported the following findings:
- While the two workshops shared some areas of similarity – duration, broad agenda and third party teams of similar size, skills, knowledge and functions – the differences outweigh the commonalities. The workshop in India, ‘Making Sense of Turbulent Context’ (MSTC), and the Cyprus ‘Problem Solving Workshop’ (PSW) differed widely in the number, influence and diversity of participants, the degree of seclusion and the roles of third party teams. Though they shared a broad workshop methodology, it is clear that the MSTC is not a type of PSW, but rather that each illustrates its respective field of practice, i.e., conflict assessment versus conflict analysis.
- The workshops’ different approaches stem first from differing assumptions about the sources of conflict. PSWs seek the resolution of conflict primarily through improvements in intergroup attitudes and relationships. The MSTC, on the other hand, was clearly shaped by the assumption that destructive structures are the primary source of conflict. This assumption seems to be shared among international development organisations, which explains the limited attention Conflict Assessment Frameworks (CAFs) tend to give to conflict dynamics such as spiralling, stereotyping and mirror imaging and actor characteristics such as needs, fears, and constraints.
- The preference for diagnosis versus strategy development could be due to cultural or organisational differences between the two groups of participants.
- The differences in the two cases, however, also illuminate areas of potential cross-fertilisation – where conflict analysis as practised in the field of conflict resolution can add to conflict assessment as practised in the field of international development, and vice versa. Lessons are outlined.
