toward an emancipatory methodology for peace research

Peace research is meant to help those working to develop a more peaceful and just world, but it falls short of its potenrinl in this respect. Most peace research is research for dominant groups (taking the nation-state as primary actor) or aboutsubordinategmrcps (utiluingthem as objects in the research pmcess). Instead, an emancipatory methodology is one that involves in theresearch process as coinvestigators subordiMlegroupsstruggling for change. Standpoint theory, which posits that in a stratifid society the perspectives on social reality of those at the bottom are less partial and perverse than those at rhe top, is used to justify this methodology. The implications of standpoint theory for some issues in peace research and some obstacles to the adoption by peace researchers of an emancipatory methodology are discussed.

TOWARD AN EMANCIPATORY METHODOLOGY FOR PEACE RESEARCH

by Abigail A. Fuller

The work that peace researchers generate is meant to foster the development of a more peaceful world. Yet, while the field of peace research has grown in recent decades, insufficient attention has been paid to whether peace research actually helps build peace. No research ever changes society in and of itself it does so only through its effects on the actions of people. Thought must be translated into action. For peace research, in particular, to be true to its mission requires that it be useful to and used by people in their efforts to build a peaceful society.

There are two ways in which peace research can aid individuals and groups in their efforts toward peace. First, it can do so in its substantive focus: by contributing to the body of theoretical and concrete knowledge of the causes, consequences, and dynamics of different types of violence, peace research can aid actors in prevent-

AUTHOR'S NOTE: I wish to acknowledge the following for their help: Paul Wehr, Tom Mayer, Martha Gimenez, Joseph J . Fahey, Rolf Kjolseth, and two anonymous reviewers.

PEACE & CHANGE, Vol. 17No. 3, July 1992 286-311 8 1992 Council on Peaa Research in History and Consortium on Peace Research, Education and Development

286

Fuller /TOWARD AN EMANCIPATORY MITHODOLOGY 287

ing and resolving violent conflicts. Second, it can do so in its methodology: peace research can contribute to peace by utilizing research methodologies that in themselves help those struggling for peace and justice.

Current peace research falls short of its potential in both these respects. In its selection of research problems, most peace research focuses (implicitly or explicitly) on issues of relevance to dominant groups - those at the top of the various structures of social stratification - and neglects the perspective and concerns of subordinate groups- those at the bottom of stratification systems. Peace research that does focus on subordinate groups uses them as objects of knowledge in a research process that mirrors hierarchical relations in society, rather than engaging them as coinvestigators in a mutually beneficial relationship that contributes to the effectiveness of their efforts at change. The consequence of excluding subordinate groups from the research process is the compromising both of the validity of the research, because important (perhaps the most important) perspectives are excluded, and of its potential to assist struggles for peace and justice, because subordinates are not aided in gaining a greater understanding themselves of social reality. In this article I argue that for peace research to be true to its professed mission demands a research methodology that starts from the lives of, and includes in the research process, people engaged in the struggles of subordinate groups to transform structures of social stratification.

THE SUBSTANTIVE FOCUS AND METHODOLOGY OF PEACE RESEARCH

PEACE RESEARCH AS RESEARCH FOR DOMINANT GROUPS

In 1972, Berenice Carroll wrote an article titled “Peace Re- search: The Cult of Power.”’ In it she warned against the “uncritical acceptance of prevailing conceptions of power” and the preoccu- pation and identification of peace researchers with those “institutions, groups, or persons conceived to be powerful” in our society,

288 PEACE & CHANGE I July 1992

which “appears in some respects to run altogether contrary to the basic objectives of peace research.”’ According to Carroll, the acceptance by peace researchers of a conception of power as dominance - the type of power possessed by nation-states- rather than of power as “independent strength, ability, autonomy, self- determination, control over one’s own life, rather than the lives of others, competence to deal with one’s environment out of one’s own energies and resources, rather than on the basis of dependence”- the type of power possessed by the “powerless”-results in an uncritical acceptance of the nation-state as the unit of analysis and in a concern with being listened to by the powerful.’

Other researchers agreed. Herman Schmid analyzed twenty-one articles with policy implications and found “that mostly they pre- suppose governments as agent^."^ Michael Wallace concurred, observing that “the very use of the term ‘policy research’ or ‘policy implications’ betrays the extent to which an official clientele is taken for granted” and warning that researchers will adopt values of their clientele, which for the state is how to maintain its power.’ Nearly twenty years since these early criticisms, the field has changed little, as supported by Chadwick Alger’s more recent remark that for peace researchers “the public may have ‘opinions,’ if asked for them by scientifically valid procedures, but they are not viewed as participants. The ‘actors’ are to be found in selected government offices at the places where stars appear on the world map.”6

Qne cause of the predominance of a focus on the state in peace research may be that the majority of peace researchers come from academic disciplines in which the state or the state policymaker is the unit of analysis. Psychologists, for example, who have been well represented among peace researchers, traditionally focus on the individual mind and so as peace researchers have studied phenom- ena such as misjudgment in policymaking.’ For political scientists, another group well represented in the peace research community, the unit of analysis is traditionally the state. On the other hand, for sociologists, for whom the unit of analysis is any social grouping, popular social movements are as likely to be studied as the state and policymakers. Sociologists, however, joined the peace research

Fuller flOWARD AN EMANCIPATORY METHODOLDGY 289

movement relatively late and continue to be somewhat under- represented in it. Elise Boulding notes that only about 10% of the authors included in the Bibliography on World Conflict and Peace are sociologists.'

Since the state is the primary vehicle for the maintenance of the power of dominant groups in the modem world, a focus on the concerns of dominant groups translates into a focus on international conflict. In the early days of peace research, the concept of structural violence was introduced in an effort to broaden the agenda of the field beyond the study of war. Whereas peace researchers in industrialized countries tended to be concerned with war, particularly superpower relations, in Third World countries the primary concern of peace researchers has been development. Johan Galtung and others have sought to include the concerns of the latter in peace research, arguing that violence is perpetuated not only directly, as in war, but through social structures as well? For example, while war injures and kills immediately, an unjust economic structure injures and also kills. The only difference is that people starve more slowly than they are slain in battle.

More recently, others have brought to the attention of peace researchers that in addition to structural violence, there are forms of direct violence besides war that merit the attention of peace researchers. For example, feminists have argued that for women, the violence of rape and spouse abuse is at least as injurious, and so of at least as great concern, as war. Andrea Dworkin has advised women to be wary of those who profess a commitment to nonviolence but do not struggle to end violence against women." Alice Walker, a noted black feminist, wrote that from the viewpoint of black people suffering under racism, a nuclear war that wiped out a white-dominated society might not be so bad." Walker's remark serves as a response to those (generally white, Western, and male) who argue that nuclear war should be the primary concern of peace research because it is the most potentially destructive form of violence.

Today, almost no peace researcher would argue that the field should confine itself to the study of war. Alger may be correct that the definition of peace is changing, both for peace researchers and

290 PEACE & CHANGE /July 1992

grass-roots movements.” Yet the evidence indicates that (at least for Western peace researchers) the acceptance of a broad definition of peace is still more nominal than actual. In the peace research journals, the overwhelming majority of articles are about war and international relations or include other forms of violence only as they relate to war (for example, the connection between sexism and militari~m).’~ If the broader agenda of peace research was in fact so widely accepted, we would expect to find work in the journals written by scholars of black studies, Asian studies, Chicano studies, and women’s studies. Logically, we would expect to find work by researchers who study poverty, because poverty is a form of structural violence. Similarly, the “peace movement” is still commonly understood to be composed of organizations working against wars or nuclear weapons, but not as including women’s organizations, antiracist organizations, environmental organizations, and the like.

When peace researchers introduced the concept of structural violence, they argued for its inclusion in the peace research agenda both on principle - “violence is violence . . . regardless of how it is and for practical reasons- structural violence and direct violence are causally connected. One reason why a substantive focus on dominant groups and their concerns is problematic is ethical: peace researchers ought to be concerned with the needs of all people, not just the powerful. The adage that a society is only as good as it treats its least fortunate members might be applied to peace research: peace research is only as good as the extent to which it focuses on the concerns of subordinate groups.

On a practical level, research directed toward the concerns of dominant groups contains the implicit assumption that the way to achieve peace is to influence the powerful. The problem with this assumption is that given the existence of structural violence, genuine peace requires the transformation of structures of social stratification (economic, social, or political) to achieve a redistribution of power, yet historically those with power have not been known to relinquish it. This issue was debated among peace researchers in the late 1960s and the 1970s. Some argued that it is most effective to gear their work toward influencing state policymakers, because i t is the state that has the bulk of violence-inflicting mechanisms at

Fuller /TOWARD AN EMANCIPATORY METHODOLOGY 291

its disposal. In contrast, others argued that given that the state is the major perpetrator of violence in the modem world, peace researchers ought to aim for their work to be helpful to grass-roots efforts against state violence, such as antinuclear weapons organizations. Schmid stated that peace research “should formulate its problems not in terms meaningful to international and supranational institutions, but in terms meaningful to suppressed and exploited groups and nations.””

Alger has written of the necessity of grass-roots participation in creating a peaceful world.I6 He concludes that “past hopes that the centers that control weapons of violence might themselves secure and guarantee peace for the people have not been fulfilled,” citing as evidence the limited success of the League of Nations and the United Nations in stopping war.” Alger notes that the numerous declarations and covenants and the like passed by interstate bodies have had very little effect on the lives of people worldwide. But the United Nations has played an important role, he claims, in facili- tating a “great global dialog” that has resulted in an expansion of the prevailing definition of peace from negative peace (the absence of war) to include positive peace (the presence of social structures conducive to human fulfillment). As the definition of what constitutes peace has broadened, so has our understanding that different sectors of society, not only the state, must be involved in overcom- ing peacelessness. Alger cites Kinihide Mushakoji as stating that peace research should emphasize the grass-roots rather than the global level, because “living men [sic] who actually receive the benefits of ‘peace’ live, after all, not in the international society at the global level but in the communities at the ‘grass-roots’ level.”’*

Because the powerful benefit from the violence perpetrated against subordinate groups, objectively they do not have an interest in eradicating it. For example, an analysis of the workings of capitalism reveals that wealth is accumulated at the expense of those whose labor is exploited, so poverty cannot be eradicated without the wealthy giving up some of their privilege. Violence against women helps maintain the system of sexual stratification in which men enjoy d~minance.’~ For dominant groups to work against these types of violence would mean to undercut their privilege.


Peace researchers have pointed out that their conclusions are un- likely to be heeded by dominant groups because the latter are interested in peace only to the extent that it does not threaten their power.*’ The experience of peace researchers in attempting to influence or invite collaboration with political elites bears this out. Anatol Rapoport believes that the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) was unsuccessful in this endeavor and calls on peace researchers to “abandon the illusion that their mission is to provide decisionmakers with better means than war for achieving their ends.” Instead, they should aim at having “a direct effect on our own (everyone’s) attitudes and expectation^."^' Within the Consortium on Peace Research, Education, and Devel- opment (COPRED), a Washington Liaison Committee was estab- lished in the 1970s to bring together researchers and policymakers in order to encourage the latter’s utilization of research; the committee lasted only several years.=

PEACE RESEARCH AS RESEARCH ABOUT SUBORDINATES

Some peace researchers do conduct studies of subordinate groups and their efforts at change, such as research on nonviolent social movements. Yet this research is generally not conducted so as to include the subordinate groups in the research process.z As a result, an opportunity is lost for subordinates to develop a more profound understanding of their social reality that would increase the effectiveness of their efforts at change. While it is important that peace researchers study grass-roots movements, it is contrary to the emancipatory project to utilize grass-roots movements merely as data for research. Paulo Freire writes about the conscienfizution that is possible when subordinate groups are included in an interactive learning process in which they are not objects of knowledge, but subjects who are involved in knowledge creation.” Conscientiza- tion involves developing an awareness of the forces of violence and their causal connections and a concrete understanding of how violence is rooted in social structures. Mushakoji refers to this process as “endogenous peace learning.”=

Fuller /TOWARD AN EMANCIPATORY METHODOLQGY 293

During the 1970s, some attempts were made by peace researchers to collaborate with movement activists in their research. Some research-action collectives were formed.26 At the International Con- ference of Peace Researchers and Peace Activists held in the Netherlands in 1975, researchers and activists discussed the possi- bilities of linking action and research and laid plans to collaborate on research projects.” Participants noted that the theories formu- lated by researchers need to be tested in action and that activists need analysis to help them build broad-scale and long-term perspectives and strategies as well as factual information on specific topics. It was concluded that a major obstacle to collaboration is the professional situation of peace researchers, namely, that they are not rewarded for working with activists and that peace itself still occupies a precarious position within academia. Nevertheless, peace researchers were noted to have a “special obligation” to focus on the needs of activists because of their “relative security and access to material resources.” Specific proposals to foster collaboration included publishing research findings in movement and professional journals, encouraging peace research institutes to work with activists, compiling a directory of peace researchers and their areas of specialization for use by activists, and planning joint confer- ences. It was suggested that peace researchers hold summer study sessions for activists and that researchers and activists trade places for short periods: researchers would spend time working in peace groups while activists would spend time at research institutes.

Alger notes that some peace researchers are calling for new methodologies to generate research that aids grass-roots efforts.28 He cites D. L. Sheth’s conclusion that “a macro-vision is the prime need of these groups and movements, and this can be satisfied only by a growing partnership between activists and intellectuals in the process of social transf~rmation.”~ Catalin Mamali is also cited by Alger as asserting that a knowledge of the social reality within which people live is necessary for the “conscious participation” of members of a community in processes of change, and that such knowledge is attainable only through the democratization of the process of the production of knowledge?’ Mushakoji agrees that research on grass-roots movements must be based on the values of

294 PEACE & CHANGE 1 July 1992

the people in those communities; he advises peace researchers to engage peace activists in the research process?’

What substantive topics might be included in research for subordinate groups? Wallace suggests that peace research could assist nonstate actors in such efforts as curbing state violence, getting basic needs from the political system with a minimum of violence, expanding the range of tactics available, and building political coalition^.'^ Alger suggests that grass-roots peace movements need help in explicating how each fragment might fit into a larger vision of a grass-roots-based peace process. At the same time, they need insight into how they might have an effective dialogue with more macro peace efforts, both national and internationalP3 Including subordinate groups in the research process is likely to change the substantive foci of peace research because the problems that subordinate groups select to study will be different from those that would have been selected by the researcher alone. At the same time, the history of peace research reveals that the inclusion of subordinate perspectives leads to a more complete knowledge of the causal connections between different forms of violence and of peace - in short, to better peace research. The advent of feminist perspectives in peace research, for example, has enabled an understanding of how militarism and sexism are mutually reinforcing.”

One might argue that basic, as opposed to applied, peace research that adds to our knowledge but has no obviously immediate application benefits subordinate groups as well. This may or may not be true. But certainly peace researchers cannot assume without con- sulting subordinate groups that somehow their research “trickles down” (or over) to them. If it does, we need to identify the mechanisms through which this occurs, so that we can rationally employ and further develop them to further the cause of peace.

THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL BASIS FOR AN EMANCIPATORY METHODOLOGY

The examples in the previous section provide evidence that the exclusion of subordinate groups from the research process both

Fuller /TOWARD AN EMANCIPAMRY METHODOLOGY 295

forgoes opportunities to help increase the effectiveness of such groups in their emancipatory efforts and results in findings that reflect a less comprehensive understanding of peace and violence. Thus for peace research to be effective two questions concerning methodology must be answered. One is a scientific question: how can the most valid results be obtained concerning the causes, dynamics, and consequences of violence and conditions for its eradication (peace)? The other is a political question: what research methodology is most effective for aiding subordinate groups in their struggles for peace and justice?

Every research methodology contains an underlying epistemology or theory of knowledge. From a theory of what categories of things it is possible to know and how we come to know them, a corresponding research strategy is created. It is necessary, then, to explicate the epistemology that justifies including subordinate groups in the research process. One such epistemology is standpoint theory.

STANDPOINT THEORY

Standpoint theory is a theory of knowledge that makes two general claims: (1) in a stratified society, one’s perspective on social reality is affected by one’s position within structures of social stratification, and (2) the perspective of those in a subordinate position actively struggling to transform those structures is “epis- temologically advantageous” - less perverse and less partial - relative to that of those in the corresponding dominant group.

While it is feminist scholars who coined the term standpoint theory, the theory can be traced back to Karl Marx postu- lated that an individual’s perspective on social reality is influenced by her or his class position. For Marx, the most fundamental division in society is that of class, defined in terms of one’s relation to the mode of production. In a class society, a dominant ideology arises that obscures the underlying structural mechanisms and justifies the status quo. The concept of an epistemological standpoint refers to the idea that subordinate groups (for Marx, the proletariat) are more likely than dominant groups (the bourgeoisie) to see through the illusions of the dominant ideology because unlike

2% PEACE & CHANGE 1 July 1992

the latter they do not have an objective interest in maintaining such illusions.

In an effort to explain why this is so, Charles Mills usefully distinguishes four mechanisms identified by Marx through which the dominant ideology is perpetuated?6

1. Class domination: This refers not to a conscious intent on the part of members of a ruling class to dominate others, but to the way in which a class system itself perpetuates the dominant ideology. For example, under capitalism the media and the educational system are controlled by the ruling class, but they rarely employ blatant censorship of dissent; rather, while there is debate, it takes place within procapitalist assumptions. Also, individuals are discouraged from dissenting by the costs imposed on them if they do.

2. Societal appearance: Marx theorized that capitalism itself generates illusions that inhibit people from seeing the structural mechanisms underlying social reality. This was M a d s realist stance: he distinguished the outward appearances of social phenom- ena from the underlying structures that give rise to them. Hence the dominant ideology is perpetuated, quite apart from the actions of the ruling class, by the very nature of capitalism. Mills cites John Elster’s distinction between “hot” mechanisms of belief formation, which involve individual motivation, and “cold” mechanisms, which are unrelated to motivation but, rather, rest on cognitive proce~ses.~’ Of course, the dominant ideology is believable because it fits the reality of the underlying structure in which societal appearance “buttresses” class domination.

3. Class interest: This is a hot mechanism. It refers to the propensity of members of the dominant class to accept the dominant ideology because of their class position and the propensity of members of subordinate classes to question the dominant ideology. Mills takes care to note that class interest does not generate illusory beliefs but, rather, contributes to their acceptance.

4. Classposition: Different class positions give rise to divergent experiences of social reality. Hence the working class, because its experiences contradict the dominant ideology, is in a better position to see through the illusions. Mills emphasizes that this is a tendency, not a law. Hence he asks who is more likely to have the greater


understanding of the functioning of social structures: a white resi- dent of Johannesburg who attends cocktail parties and plays golf, or a black who lives in Soweto and commutes to work.

These causal mechanisms lead only to the tendency for members of the proletariat but not members of the ruling class to see through the illusions of dominant ideology. It is still necessary to explain both why it is that not all workers see through such illusions and why some members of the bourgeoisie do. The answer is that a “veridical’738 insight into social reality (or, as Marx called it, “revolutionary consciou~ness’~) is achieved through active struggle against oppressive structures. In principle, anyone from any class is capable of engaging in such struggle and achieving this insight. However, because of the mechanisms explained above, in practice members of the proletariat are more likely to engage in active struggle against oppressive structures than are members of the bourgeoisie are.

This brings us to the notion of praxis. The reason that individuals cannot attain a revolutionary consciousness without engaging in active struggle against oppressive structures is that social structures become visible only when one pushes up against them in struggle. As Sandra Harding notes, “Members of marginalized groups must struggle to name their own experience for themselves in order to claim the subjectivity that is given to members of dominant groups ‘at birth’. . . . Achieving publicly self-named ‘experience’ is a pre- condition for generating knowledge”3g (emphasis in original). It is through this struggle that the structures of social stratification and their dynamics are revealed: “In a socially stratified society, the objectivity of the results of research is increased by political activism by and on behalf of the oppressed, exploited and dominated group^."^

FEMLNIST STANDPOINT THEORY

Standpoint theory has been advanced by feminist scholars in their justifications of a unique feminist perspective on social reality. Feminists have, however, contributed to and changed Marx’s theory of knowledge. There has been much fruitful debate in the feminist

298 PEACE CHANGE I JUIY 1992

movement on the proper relation between feminist research, or academic feminism, and feminist activism. Central to this debate has been the development of feminist research methods to guide the work of researchers. Feminists have asked the question, How can research be conducted so as to maximize its emancipatory potential for women? Feminist theorists have adapted and developed the Marxist theory of knowledge to explain why it is that the inclusion of feminist perspectives leads to “more empirically accu- rate and theoretically richer explanations than the conventional research .”41

Feminists have taken issue with Marx’s assertion that the proletariat is the only group in a position to see through the dominant ideology. They argue that because of their position in the social structure of gender stratification, women also have an epistemolog- ically advantageous standpoint. Feminist research has uncovered empirical evidence for a unique women’s standpoint; for example, psychological research regarding women’s different perceptions of reality.42 Feminists have also begun to investigate the specific resources that women as a subordinate group bring to an analysis of social reality. These resources stem from the characteristics of women’s subordination. For instance, because of their role as the physical and emotional caretakers of men and children, women have a more complete view of the daily “production” of human beings than do men.

OTHER STANDPOINT THEORIES

Although standpoint theory has been most highly developed by feminists, in principle any subordinate group within a social stratification system has a unique standpoint. Each group will have different “distinctive resources” that have been neglected or deval- ued by mainstream researchers, resulting in a unique standpoint. For example, white women are more apt than white men to understand patriarchal social structures clearly, but white women are less apt to have the same degree of insight into racist social structures as black women have. Mills cites black philosophers who argue for a black standpoint, asserting that “philosophy has not been immune


to the racism that has pervaded so much of Western thought about non-European peoples.”43 As Harding concludes, “Knowledge is always socially situated; but the insights of standpoint theory enable us to see how nevertheless we can find rationally justifiable and competent criteria to distinguish less false from more false assumptions and claims.””

In summary, standpoint theory offers an epistemological justifi- cation for starting research from the standpoint of those actively working with subordinate groups to transform social structures: research so done is actually more scientifically valid. Such research will then be more effective in aiding work for peace and justice. Engaging those working for peace and justice as coinvestigators in the research process also increases its emancipatory potential.

THE SPECIFICS OF AN EMANCIPATORY RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A research methodology based in standpoint epistemology starts from the lives of those actively struggling with subordinate groups for peace and justice and involves them interactively in the research process. It should be noted that to speak of “in~olving’~ others implies that the researcher remains in control of who participates and who does not, which is contrary to the self-determination that is an essential element of emancipatory research. Galtung concludes that “every profession is in and by itself some form of structural violence,” because by definition a professional has a monopoly on some type of competence.” Ideally, those working for peace and justice would possess the skills and knowledge necessary to conduct research themselves; at the very least, they would initiate research projects and enlist trained researchers as coinvestigators. At the present time, however, the professional social science researcher does exist: the requisite knowledge and skills for research are taught in the university, to which members of subordinate groups have relatively less access. What needs to occur is a democratization of the production of knowledge such that anyone who so desires can gain the skills and knowledge necessary

300 PEACE & CHANGE / July 1992

for research. In the meantime, peace researchers will probably need to “invite” the collaboration of subordinate groups.

Peace researchers have been largely silent on the issue of the appropriateness of their research methodologies to the promotion of peace. A notable exception to the paucity of discussion on peace research methodology is Galtung’s application of the concept of structural violence to social science Galtung illustrates how the four components of structural violence are found in the relationship between the researcher and the researched in traditional social science methodology:

1.

2.

3.

4.

exploitation: the research is characterized by a vertical division of labor in which the researcher uses the researched for her or his own interests, without tangible benefit for the researched; penetration: the autonomy of the researched is violated when she or he does not know what the research is about while the researcher does know; fragmentation: the researched are separated from each other by the researcher; this is done in traditional research in order to increase the validity of the research by avoiding “contamination”; and marginalization: the researcher is the (supposedly) objective and knowledgeable observer, and the researched become a “scientific proletariat.”

Inexplicably, there is no evidence in the literature that Galtung’s article provoked any discussion among peace researchers. The author himself,’ however, did follow up on his ideas about social science research in his work The True W 0 r h . 4 ~ In the last chapter of the book, Galtung notes that proposals about what should be done to achieve a more peaceful world are incomplete without an “oper- ational part” that delineates “how,” “when,” and “where.” As to who, Galtung notes that in a stratified society, the individuals most capable of implementing change- those at the top-are un- likely to possess much motivation to do so. We need to look at how those most motivated - those at the bottom -can become more capable of making change.

Galtung warns of such theories that a priori designate a specific category of people as the agent of change and categorize all others as the enemy. (He specifically mentions Marxism, noting that it may

Fuller mOWARD AN EMANCIPAMRY METHODOLOGY 301

be either the theory itself or the use of the theory that is problematic.) I would argue that it is important to identify that category or categories of people who, because of their objective position within a social structure, are potential agents of structural change. Stand- point theory stresses that doing so does not entail the a priori inclusion or exclusion of anyone in the group of agents of social change: while an individual’s objective structural position indicates her or his relative tendency to resist or promote social change, it is individual volition that finally determines whether a person becomes an agent of change or not.

The way to create new social structures is, for Galtung, through the promotion of self-reliance. Although Galtung does not mention his earlier article, it is obvious that in the context of social science research, self-reliance entails not being “researched” by professional researchers, but learning the skills and acquiring the knowledge to conduct research oneself. Galtung discusses the emancipatory potential of self-reliance, noting that an “expert” on conflict who offers to solve the problems of others “is, structurally speaking, a thief, for he takes away from others a possibility for personal, and thereby social, growth.”48

It is useful to review the types of social science research methodologies that have been developed outside the field of peace research to involve the researched in the research process. Randy Stoecker and David Beckwith provide such a review, examining the differences between applied research, action research, and praxis re~earch.~’ The most basic distinction is that applied research is meant to be value-free while action and praxis research are not. Applied research is simply research in the service of a client, without regard for political implications. Hence it is typically research for those who can pay (governments and corporations). Action or praxis research, on the other hand, is research in the service of subordinate groups struggling for social change.

The respective methods used in these types of research follow from this distinction. Applied research is “top-down,” in that the entire research process is controlled by the researchers rather than the client. Action research, developed largely in the fields of community psychology and community development, is research not


only for but with clients and as such involves them in all aspects of the research process in an effort to aid their problem solving and decision making. Praxis research is action research with the addition of an emancipatory intent. As in action research, the researched are involved in generating the research problem, carrying out the research, and often implementing the findings in political action. In addition, however, the researcher introduces critical theory to help the researched understand the underlying structural causes of the problem being studied. In turn, that theory is modified in light of the research findings. Patti Lather describes three issues essential to praxis research: the need for reciprocity between the researcher and the “researched,” such as by the former channeling preliminary research results back to the latter for modification; the need for “dialectical theory-building” between the researcher’s a priori theory and the experience of the “researched,” as opposed to “theoretical imposition” by the researcher; and the need to ensure the validity of the research findings by checking for triangulation, construct validity, face validity, and catalytic validity (the degree to which the research promotes cons~ientization).’~

A prime example of praxis research is Stoecker and Beckwith’s work with community-based development organizations (CBDOs) in Toledo, Ohio.” The first step was to assess the needs of the CBDOs. One of the coauthors, a community organizer in Toledo, drafted an interview guide and sent it to some central members of the CBDOs for comment. The leaders of twenty-two organizations were invited to a meeting to discuss the study and assess the interview guide. The interview guide was rewritten on the basis of these comments. After the interviews were completed and written up, a preliminary draft of the research results was distributed to the CBDOs for comments, before a final draft was completed. The major findings were that the organizations lacked money and coordination among themselves and needed more trained staff, board members, and community outreach.

Stoecker and Beckwith decided to present the findings at a conference of city officials, foundation representatives, and CBDO members, to enlist the aid of the former two groups. A working group was formed of representatives from each of these groups to


work on the problems, and it was largely successful. One subgroup conducted a study of local foundations and their priorities, in which critical theory helped participants understand the social structural context of foundation funding. A second conference was held to celebrate the successes, present the results of further research, and formulate future plans.

Stoecker and Beckwith are candid about their project’s falling short of true praxis research. Specifically, they state that the project was not as fully participatory as praxis research should be and that, with the exception of parts of the foundation study, there was a lack of introduction of critical theory to induce participants to see the causes of their problems in the broader context of social structures. However, they note that when a community is not highly mobilized and radicalized, action research may be more appropriate than praxis research. In such a situation, the introduction of critical theory- such as a critique of capitalism or of the power structure of a city - may alienate potential participants.

Praxis research is most prevalent in Third World countries (although various different terms may be used). Rolf Kjolseth and others have proposed a project titled “The Development of Action Research Capabilities among Central American Refugee and Dis- placed G r o u p ~ . ~ ’ ~ ~ The purpose of the project is to “transfer appropriate technologies of social scientific inquiry” to members of refugee and displaced groups in Central America so that they can conduct research into self-defined problems in order to produce information for those making policy that affects their lives. The plan is for a team to train members of the refugee and displaced groups in research skills, which the latter then use to conduct research aided by the training team. Finally, the team acts as a liaison for the coinvestigators to share information and results and organize future projects.

In India, researchers collaborated with local people in conduct- ing a cost-benefit analysis of the Bedthi hydroelectric project in North Kanara, Karnataka. Local people who would be affected by flooding from the project opposed it but had been unsuccessful in halting it. Some Indian researchers together with local activists surveyed local inhabitants regarding the impact of the project on

304 PEACE & CHANGE /July 1992

them. The conclusion was that the loss of agricultural land and natural resources would adversely affect local people much more than the planners of the project had estimated. As a result of relaying the research findings to the project’s decision makers, work on the project has been stopped and a commission appointed to assess its feasibility. Researchers and local inhabitants have continued to work together to generate socially and ecologically responsible proje~ts.’~

SOME IMPLICATIONS OF STANDPOINT THEORY FOR PEACE RESEARCH

THE DEFINIL‘ION OF PEACE

Since the inception of the field, the definition of what constitutes peace and consequently the proper focus of peace research has never been taken for granted in the peace research community. As has been suggested, the debate has engaged those who would adopt a “narrow” definition of peace as the absence of international violence with those who argue for a “broad” definition that includes the absence of structural violence, or the presence of justice. Standpoint theory offers an explanation of why this debate has occurred. According to standpoint theory, it is the social structural positions of the actors in this debate that form the basis for their positions. This becomes obvious when we note, for instance, that it was the growing protest of Third World peoples against colonial- ism and its consequences that led to the inclusion of structural violence in the peace research agenda in the 1970s. Similarly, it is largely women peace researchers who have argued for the inclusion of feminist concerns in peace research. Conversely, it tends to be white, Western, male peace researchers who confine their scholar- ship to analyses of the causes and prevention of international conflict. Mills suggests that “certain issues have only historically been seen as problems in the first place because of the privileged universalization of the experience and outlook of a very limited (particularistic) sector of humanity - largely white, male, and prop-

Fuller mOWARD AN EMANCIPATORY METHODOLOGY 305

ertied.”54 As more disenfranchised groups are included in the peace research community, how that community defines peace is likely to change further. Galtung notes that history is a process, such that our goals are not constant or fixed; “we shall always be under way.””

This is not to say that the study of war is not important. But a fundamental tenet of peace research is that we are global citizens. From this follows the obligation to counter not only the violence to which we are personally vulnerable but all types of violence that affect people globally. As argued above, fulfilling this obligation results in better research: we gain a better understanding of how poverty, war, racism, militarism, sexism, economic exploitation, and the like are interconnected.

VIOLENCE VERSUS NONVIOLENCE

Standpoint theory also sheds light on the question whether violence can be used to achieve peace and justice. On one side of the debate are pacifists who argue that violence is never justified; on the other side are those who argue that violence is sometimes necessary to achieve justice, particularly that violent revolutions are sometimes justified to eradicate structural violence. According to standpoint theory, one’s opinion in this regard is affected by one’s position in the social structure. As a North American citizen, for instance, I occupy a social structural position very different from that of those in El Salvador struggling against a repressive government. Because I do not experience the threat of violence daily as they do, it would be problematic for me to prescribe that the Farabundo Marti para la Liberacidn Nacional (FMLN) use only nonviolent tactics.

From the standpoint of those such as the Salvadorans, the most appropriate stance may be, not an orthodox adherence to pacifism or to violence, but a realization that whether nonviolence or violence is more effective as a means for achieving peace and justice is a question that must be answered e~npirically.’~ More research is needed on this topic, such as that being conducted by Douglas Bond at the Albert Einstein Institution, who is undertaking a comparative


study of the effectiveness of violent and nonviolent means of waging ~onflicts.~’ Given a responsibly skeptical stance on this issue, however, we can still argue for the research, teaching, and promotion of nonviolence as an alternative. The peace researcher should maximize information regarding choices but “in simple honesty he [sic] cannot misrepresent the choices involved, or worse yet pretend that no choices exist.”58

CONCLUSION: PROSPECTS FOR THE ADOPTION OF AN EMANCIPATORY METHODOLOGY

Whether an emancipatory research methodology can or will be practiced by peace researchers has much to do with the institutional milieu within which peace research is conducted. Peace research, like any other kind of research, does not take place in a social vacuum. In the United States, most peace researchers are faculty at colleges and universities, so the context of the production of peace research is the academy. This creates a contradiction. On the one hand, as argued here, genuine peace involves the redistribution of power in society. On the other hand, the educational system is itself one of the major institutions for the perpetuation of social stratification.” It should come as no surprise, then, that the academy does not generally reward the production of research aimed explicitly at creating egalitarian social structures. In decisions regarding hiring, tenure, and promotion of faculty, the fact that a researcher has attempted to make her or his work of practical use to anyone outside academia generally does not count in their favor.

This is likely to be especially true if those for whom the research is meant to be useful are not dominant groups (such as corporations or the government) but groups challenging the economic, political, or social status quo. Furthermore, doing research about subordinate groups is likely to be more acceptable than doing research for (or with) subordinate groups. What researchers are rewarded for is procuring research grants and disseminating their research findings to colleagues through publication in scholarly journals or presentation at professional meetings. And those in a position to offer


research grants are, of course, not subordinate groups, but government and private foundations that are controlled by and reflect the interests of the powerful.

On the other side of the equation, engaging subordinate groups as coinvestigators in peace research means the latter must overcome their distrust of academic scholars as “arm-chair intellectuals.” This distrust is at least partly justified. Historically, academicians have not generally involved themselves in the struggles of such groups. As described above, social scientists studying subordinate groups have most often simply exploited the latter as a source of research data, useful for future publications to secure tenure and promotions.

The task for peace researchers is to take seriously that “an emancipatory intent is no guarantee of an emancipatory During the 1970s, peace researchers reacted against the assertion that scholarly research can or should be value-free. But repudiating the myth of value-free research does not mean giving up the quest for scientific knowledge and for the research methodologies that will best generate such knowledge. Certainly we want peace research to be effective at its task, which means that scientifically it must be valid. At the same time, it should be ethically emancipatory.

I am not arguing for methodological monism. What has been put forth here is meant as a corrective to peace research as it is currently practiced, not as a new orthodoxy. The point is that peace researchers need to be more aware of the ethical and strategic implications of their selection of research problems and of how they study them. We may in fact need some researchers to continue to try to influence state policymakers, for example. But such researchers would be wise to remember the dilemmas of their task and to exercise vigilance against feeling too comfortable within circles of power.

Neither am I arguing that white, Western, males cannot do good peace research. Standpoint theory is emphatically not an essentialist theory. The standpoint of a subordinate group is available to those who would engage in the struggle for its emancipation. It is not, however, available simply from reading or writing books or journal articles. Perhaps being a good peace researcher means getting out of the “ivory tower” and struggling alongside subordinate groups. As peace researchers, we need to take a hard look not only at the


institutional milieu within which we conduct our research but also inside ourselves to discover what are the obstacles to producing peace research that meets the “challenge of authenticity” 61 -the challenge to be what we claim to be.

NOTES

1. &renice A. Carroll, “Peace Research: The Cult of Power,” JOIUM~ of Conflict

2. bid., 585. 3. bid., 607. 4. Herman Schmid, “Peace Research, Peace Action and Action Research” (Paper

presented at the 139th meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, December 30, 1972).

5. Michael D. Wallace, “The Radical Critique of Peace Research: An Exposition and Interpretation,” Peace Research Reviews 4, no. 4 (1972): 37.

6. Chadwick F. Alger, “Peace Studies at the Crossroads: Where Else?” A ~ M ~ s of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 504 (July 1989): 124.

7. Elise Boulding, “The Participation of Sociologists in the Nuclear Debate,” (Paper presented at the American Sociological Association Meetings, San Antonio, Texas, 1984).

8. Ibid.; Elise Boulding, with Robert Passmore and Robert Scott Gassler, Bibliography on World Conflict and Peace (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1979).

9. Johan Galtung, “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research,” Journal ofPeoce Research 6 (1969): 167-91.

10. Andrea Dworkin, Our Blood: Prophecies and Discourse on Sexual Politics (New York: Harper & Row, 1976).

1 1 . Alice Walker, Living by the Word: Selected Writings, 1973-1987 (San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1988).

12. Chadwick F. Alger, “A Grassroots Approach to Life in Peace,” Bulletin ofPeoce Proposak 18 (I 987): 375-92

13. A cursory review of the articles published in the last several years in IheJournalof Peace Research, the Bulletin of Peace Proposals, and Peace and Change bears out this conclusion. In all three journals, the great majority of articles (approximately 75% to 90%) take the nation-state lo be the primary actor, focusing on such topics as war, a m races, nuclear weapons, conventional weapons, militarism, military service, military spending, national civilian-based defense, arms control, international relations, international law, and international organizations (e.g., the United Nations). (Theother articles focus onsuch topics as the environment, culture and conflict resolution, gender and conflict resolution, transna- tional organizations (e.g.. the Red Cross), nonviolence, peace education, peace action, and the global economy).

Similarly, the UNESCO Yearbook on Conflict andPeaceStlrdies, I988 (Paris: UNESCO and Westport, C P Greenwood, 1990) contains four articles, all of which assume the nation-state, or its leaders, as primary actor. A piece by Adamichin focuses on the “new thinking” of Soviet policymaken; Johansen argues for the recognition of common security needs between the United States and the Soviet Union, writing of “what Moscow wants”

Resolution 16 (1972): 585-616.

Fuller mOWARD AN EMANCIPATQRY METHODOLOGY 309

and “what Washington wants” (34); Subrahmanyam looks at the efforts of the United Nations (supranational, but still composed of nation-state representatives) and other international actors to reallocate resources from armaments to development. The fourth piece, which constitutes half the book, is a survey of disarmament research by Brauch that outlines a conceptual map of the field and explains the disarmament process. While one could argue that the information in these adicles might be of use to non-nation-state actors in their efforts to influence the nation-state, still the nation-state is conceptualized as the ultimate actor.

14. Johan Galtung, “Twenty-Five Years of Peace Research: Ten Challenges and Some Responses,”Journal of Peace Research 22, no. 2 (1985): 146.

15. Herman Schmid, “Peace Research and Politics,” Journal of Peace Research 5, no. 3

16. Alger, “A Grassroots Approach lo Life in Peace.” 17. Ibid., 375. 18. Kinihide Mushakoji, “Peace Research as an International Learning Process: A New

Meta-Paradigm,” InternationaIStudies Quarferly 22, no. 2 (June 1978): 184, cited in Alger, “Peace Studies at the Crossroads.”

19. See, for example, Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1975).

20. See Schmid, ”Peace Research, Peace Action and Action Research”; Thomas S. Lough, “Peace Researchers and the Movement: No Meeting Place?” Peace and Change 1, no. 1 (1972): 55-62; Mark Pilisuk and Thomas Hayden, “Is There a Military-Industrial Complex Which Prevents Peace?”JournaI ofSociallssues 21, no. 3 (1965): 67-117.

21. Anatol Rapoporf “Problems of Peace Research” (Paper presented at the Fourth General International Peace Research Conference, Bled, Yugoslavia, October 1971), 21.

22. Chadwick F. Alger and Elise Boulding, “From Vietnam to El Salvador: Eleven Years of COPRED,” Peace and Change 7, no. 3 (1981): 35-43.

23. As stated in note 13, none of the articles in the UNESCO Yearbook on Conflict and Peace Studies, 1988 assume subordinate groups as primary actors. Of the thirty-six articles in A J u t Peace through Transformation (the proceedings of the Eleventh Conference of the International Peace Research Association, published in 1988), about one-third foam on the concerns of subordinate groups. However, the only one that shows evidence of having included the researched groups in the research process is Wehr and Fitzsimrnons’s study. For example, Rawlinson’s article comparing three nonviolent campaigns makes no mention of any participation by the campaigners in his research process or of his making his research results available to them.

24. Paulo Frcire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York: Herder & Herder, 1970). 25. Mushakoji, “Peace Research as an International Learning Process.” 26. See, for example, The Research/Action Collective of the Center for Conflict Resolution,

“ResearcNAction,” Peace and Change 3, no. 1 (1975): 50-52. 27. See “Reports of the International Conference of Peace Researchers and Peace

Activists,” Peace and Change 3, no. 4 (1976): 61-77. 28. Alger, “Peace Studies at the Crossroads.” 29. D. L. Sheth, “Grass-Roots Stirrings and the Future of Politics,” Alfeernahves 9

(Summer 1983): 386. 30. Catalin Mamali, Societal Learning and Democratuafion of the Social Research

Process (Bucharest Research Center for Youth Problems, 1979). 31. Mushakoji, “Peace Research as an International Learning Process.” 32. Wallace, “The Radical Critique of Peace Research.’’ 33. Alger, “Peace Studies at the Crossroads.”

(1968): 217-32.


34. See, for example, Betty Reardon, Sexism and the War System (New York: Teachers College Press, 1975); Pam McAllister, ed., Reweaving the We6 of Life: Feminism and Nonviolence (Philadelphia: New Society, 1982).

35. Karl Marx, The German Ideobgy (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1965). 36. Charles W. Mills, “Determination and Consciousness in Marx,” Canadian Journal

37. John Elster, Making Sense ofMarx (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). 38. Mills, “Determination and Consciousness in M a , ” 443. 39. Sandra Harding, “Starting Thought from Women’s Lives: Eight Resources for

Maximizing Objectivity,”Journal ofSocial Philosophy 21, nos. 2 ,3 (FallM’inter 1990): 9. 40. Ibid., 15. 41. Ibid., 2. See also Alison Jaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nantre (Totowa, NJ:

Rowman & Allanheld, 1983); Nancy Hartsock, “The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism,” in Discovering Real@, ed. Sandra Harding and M. Hintikka (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1983); Hilary Rose, “Hand, Brain, and Heart: A Feminist Epistemology for the Natural Sciences,” Signs 9, no. 1 (1983): 73-90; Dorotby Smith, TheEwryday WorldasProblematic (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1987).

42. See, for example, Jaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nature; Carol Gilligan, InA Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982).

43. Charles W. Mills, “Alternative Epistemologies,” Social Theory andPractice 14, no. 3 (1988): 237. Mills cites a special issue ofPhilosophica1 Forum (9 [Winter-Spring 1977-781) titled “Philosophy and the Black Experience”; Leonard Hams, ed., Philosophy Born of Struggle: Anthology of Afro-American Philosophy (Dubuque, I A Kendall/Hunt, 1983); Howard McGary, Jr., “Teaching Black Philosophy,” Teaching Philosophy 7 , no. 2 (1984):

of Philosophy 19, no. 3 (1989): 4 2 1 4 .

129-37. 44. Harding, “Starting Thought from Woman’s Lives,” 23. 45. Johan Galtung, The True Worlds (New York: Free Press, 1980), 415. 46. Johan Galtung, “Is Peaceful Research Possible? On the Methodology of Peace

Research,” chap. 12 in Essays in Peace Research, vol. 1 (Copenhagen: Christian Ejlers, 1975), 263-79.

47. Galtung, True Worlds. 48. Ibid., 417. 49. Randy Stoecker and David Beckwith, “Advancing Toledo’s Neighborhood Move-

ment through Action Research: Integrating Activist and Academic Approaches” (Paper prepared for the American Sociology Association Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, 1990).

50. Patti Lather, “Research as Praxis,” Harvard Educational Review 5 (1986): 257-77. 5 1 . Stoecker and Beckwith, “Advancing Toledo’s Neighborhood Movement Through

Action Research.” 52. Rolf Kjolseth, “Developing Action Research Capabilities among Central American

Refugee and Displaced Groups” (Paper presented at the University for Peace Conference on Seeking the True Meaning of Peace, San Jose, Costa Rica, June 28,1989).

53. V. Shiva and J. Bandyopadhyay, “Participatory Research and Technology Assessment by the People,” in Participatory Research and Evaluution: Experiments in Research as a Process of Liberation, ed. Walter Fernandes and Rajes Tandon (New Delhi: Indian Social Institute, 1981), chap. 6.

54. Mills, “Alternative Epistemologies,”, 238.

Fuller ROWARD AN EMANCIPAMRY METHODOLOGY 311

55. Galtung, True Worlds, 413. 56. Alan G. and Hanna Newcombe, “Approaches to Peace Research,” Peace Research

57. Douglas G. Bond, ‘The Nature and Meanings of Nonviolent Direct Action,” Jownul

58. Wallace, “The Radical Critique of Peace Research,” 45. 59. See, for example, Henry A. Giroux, Schooling and the Struggle for Public Life

(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1988). 60. J. Acker, K. Barry, and J. Esseveld, “Objectivity and Truth: Problems in Doing

Feminist Research,” Women’s Studies International Forum 6, no. 4, 431, cited in Lather, “Research as Praxis,” 267.

61. Betty Reardon, “Are the Walls Coming Down?” (Panel presentation at the Second Annual Meeting of the Peace Studies Association, March 10,1990, Eugene, OR).

Reviews 4, no. 4 (1972): 1-23

ofPeuce Research 25, no. 1 (1988): 81-89.

toward an emancipatory methodology for peace research

Documents