Peacebuilding 2.0: Mapping the Boundaries of an Expanding Field

Methodology
During the early stages of project development, we
considered, but rejected, a deductive approach to
scoping and defining peacebuilding. Rather than
starting with an a priori definition of peacebuilding
that would help establish the boundaries of the field, we
decided to adopt an inductive approach to defining the
field through the work of peacebuilding organizations
and other institutions working on issues broadly related
to conflict and peace.
To better understand the organizations that identify
as peacebuilders, as well as similar organizations,
we designed a two-phase survey. 17 The first survey
instrument was quite detailed, since it targeted AfP
members, to establish a baseline for the study’s
core peacebuilding constituency. The second survey
instrument 18 was streamlined and tailored for a broader
community of practitioners whose work intersected
with that of self-identified peacebuilders or ran in
tandem in related fields. 19
faith-based and religion, food security, genocide
prevention, health, human rights, humanitarian aid,
human security, nuclear proliferation, peacebuilding, 20
refugees and internally displaced persons, rule of law,
science and technology, security, women, and youth.
While not exhaustive, we considered this list to cover
the sectors most closely connected with peacebuilding.
Finally, the second survey asked the qualifying
question, “Do you consider your organization’s work
as peacebuilding?” in order to separate organizations
that self-identify as peacebuilders and those that do not.
This identifier allowed us to compare peacebuilding
organizations and those whose work may be congruent.
Through this process of self-definition we were able to
examine the various approaches and working methods
of the wide range of organizations that currently occupy
the same conflict space as peacebuilders.
Organizations included in the second survey were
chosen through a variety of methods, including internetbased
research, recommendations from the Steering
Committee and other key stakeholders, partners of
AfP members that participated in the first survey, and
rosters provided by InterAction, the Global Partnership
for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC),
and the Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR).
Additionally, we analyzed the pool of organizations
for the second survey through a sectoral lens to ensure
that it was representative of key actors from a wide
range of fields, including academia, conflict prevention,
democracy and governance, development, environment,
20 Peacebuilding was also considered its own sector, and
many organizations identified themselves as belonging to the
peacebuilding field.
17 The complete responses from the two surveys are
available in appendix 2 on AfP’s website, http://www.
allianceforpeacebuilding.org/pmp.
18 See appendices 4 and 5 online for complete survey
instruments.
19 The first survey (n=66) was conducted from August
through December 2011 and the second (n=262) from
November 2011 through January 2012.
Alliance for Peacebuilding
23