IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/54sa9_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Peace, politics, and practice – the need for multidisciplinary consultation to progress peacebuilding

Author

Listed:
  • Horwood, Marcus

Abstract

This chapter reviews the current challenges confronting international peacebuilding and aid efforts. It argues two fundamental shortcomings exist; the underlying motives and assumptions of international peacebuilding initiatives; and the methods used to assess the impact of such initiatives. As a result, the fundamental bases on which peacebuilding initiatives are designed and implemented are flawed, explaining the ineffectiveness of current peacebuilding strategies. This chapter then identifies the substantial overlap between the fields of positive peace, positive psychology, and education, and thus proposes multidisciplinary consultation to explore alternative peacebuilding approaches, both theoretical and methodological, to address current peacebuilding effort shortfalls. Consistent throughout each field it becomes evident a universal needs over ideals basis is necessary. Thus, informed by a universal needs perspective, this review proposes an international peacebuilding framework using an innovative strategy of standardized customization. Combining the standardization and psychometric rigor of International Large-Scale Assessments (e.g., Programme for International Student Assessment), with community designed, led, and managed interventions via a community participatory action approach, this chapter theorizes current shortfalls in peacebuilding efforts can be overcome, significant insights into positive peace monitoring and development can be derived, and importantly, geopolitical motivation and positive peace promotion can be aligned.

Suggested Citation

  • Horwood, Marcus, 2025. "Peace, politics, and practice – the need for multidisciplinary consultation to progress peacebuilding," OSF Preprints 54sa9_v1, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:54sa9_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/54sa9_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/67b56410e617c2af7ca54c99/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/54sa9_v1?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jennifer Keahey, 2021. "Sustainable Development and Participatory Action Research: A Systematic Review," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 291-306, June.
    2. Benjamin O Fordham, 2020. "History and quantitative conflict research: A case for limiting the historical scope of our theoretical arguments," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(1), pages 3-15, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maura A. E. Pilotti & Khadija El Alaoui & Hanadi M. Abdelsalam & Rahat Khan, 2023. "Sustainable Development in Action: A Retrospective Case Study on Students’ Learning Before, During, and After the Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-17, May.
    2. Margherita Paola Poto & Arianna Porrone, 2021. "A Co-Created Methodological Approach to Address the Relational Dimension of Environmental Challenges: When Critical Legal Analysis Meets Illustrated Storytelling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-10, November.

    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:osf:osfxxx:54sa9_v1. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    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.