Evidence for peacebuilding: an evidence gap map

Cameron, Drew; Brown, Annette N.; Mishra, Anjini; Picon, Mario; Esper, Hisham; Calvo, Flor; Peterson, Katia; Consultant, Independent

doi:10.23846/egm001

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a result, we exclude before-after studies with no control group, such as Bar-Natan et al (2010), Maoz (2000), or Schroeder and Risen (2014), given that such studies may be confounded by general trends or effects of repeated exposure to measurement. The primary source was a database of peace-building intervention studies constructed as part of an "evidence gap map" study by the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (Cameron et al, 2015). The database was constructed as the result of an exhaustive search of electronic research databases for behavioral science, political science, economics, health science, and public policy.…”

Section: Notementioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing Violent Intergroup Conflict from the Bottom Up?

Ditlmann

Samii

Zeitzoff

2017

Social Issues Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How might interventions that engage ordinary citizens in settings of violent conflict affect broader conflict dynamics? Given the volume of resources committed every year to citizen‐oriented programs that attempt to promote peace, this is an important question. We develop a framework to analyze processes through which individual‐level interventions could mitigate violent conflict escalation more broadly. Individual‐level interventions may increase positive feelings toward the outgroup, as well as psychological, social, and material resources among participants. These have the potential to influence behaviors such as policing of the ingroup, public advocacy, and political action that can contribute to peace. Yet, the effectiveness of interventions to influence the conflict is moderated by contextual factors like groups’ access to material resources, their positions in society, and political institutions. We use this analytical framework to assess evidence from recent intervention studies. We find that the current evidence base is quite small, does not cover the diversity of relevant contexts, and gives too little attention to resources and capacities that enable people to engage in conflict mitigation behaviors. Researchers and policy makers should go beyond thinking only about improving attitudes to thinking about behavior, resources, and capacities for such behaviors, and contextual conditions that constrain behavior.

show abstract

Section: Notementioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing Violent Intergroup Conflict from the Bottom Up?

Ditlmann

Samii

Zeitzoff

2017

Social Issues Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, we do not aim to include rule-of-law interventions addressing justice or policing. Similarly, as a 3ie EGM already covers peacebuilding interventions in fragile and conflict affected states (Cameron et al 2015), we do not aim to incorporate that body of knowledge. We set our scope in Sections 2.1 and 2.4 of this report.…”

Section: Methodological Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

State-society relations in low- and middle-income countries: an evidence gap map

Phillips¹,

Coffey²,

Gallagher³

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) is an international grant-making NGO promoting evidence-informed development policies and programmes. We are the global leader in funding, producing and synthesising high-quality evidence of what works, for whom, why and at what cost. We believe that high-quality and policyrelevant evidence will make development more effective and improve people's lives. 3ie evidence gap maps 3ie evidence gap maps (EGMs) are thematic collections of information about impact evaluations or systematic reviews that measure the effects of international development policies and programmes. The maps present a visual overview of existing and ongoing studies in a sector or sub-sector in terms of the types of programmes evaluated and the outcomes measured. EGM reports provide all the supporting documentation for the maps themselves, including the background information for the theme of the map, the methods and results, including the protocols and the analysis of the results. 3ie EGMs are available through an online interactive platform on the 3ie website that allows users to explore the studies and reviews that are included. About this evidence gap map reportThis report summarises the methods and findings of an EGM on interventions that seek to improve state-society relations, which was developed by 3ie with funding from USAID and under contract with NORC at the University of Chicago. The online map can be found here.All of the content is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not represent the opinions of 3ie, its donors, Board of Commissioners, NORC, USAID or the US government. Any errors and omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors. Any comments or queries should be directed to the corresponding author, Daniel Phillips dphillips@3ieimpact.org. AcknowledgementsWe gratefully acknowledge funding of this project from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the support of NORC at the University of Chicago for contract administration. We are grateful to colleagues who provided inputs at various stages of the map: Edoardo Masset, Annette Brown, Birte Snilstveit, Kristen Rankin, Jorge Hombrados, Francis Rathinam, Deepthy Menon and Diana Milena Lopez Avila. We would also like to thank the members of our advisory board: Eric Kramon, Jennifer Stuttle, Clare Mcloughlin, George Ingram and Leonard Wantchekon. We are grateful to staff at USAID and NORC at the University of Chicago who helped inform the map's development. Thanks also to all the authors who shared completed and ongoing papers and helped improve the map, as well as all those who helped by providing comments, in particular our external peer reviewer. All errors are authors' own.ii Summary BackgroundThe role of the state, the effectiveness of its institutions and its legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens are central to determining a country's prospects for stability and development. The critical importance of the state-society relationship to the global development agenda is undersco...

show abstract

“…They are all reviews of studies on psychological or psychosocial interventions to help youth in conflictaffected situations. We summarise these in Cameron et al (2015).…”

Section: Promising Questions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The limitations for the evidence gap map are described in Cameron et al (2015). An important limitation of this scoping paper is the low number of respondents to the stakeholder survey.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The current state of peacebuilding programming and evidence

Brown¹,

McCollister²,

Cameron³

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

About 3ieThe International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) is an international grant-making NGO promoting evidence-informed development policies and programmes. We are the global leader in funding and producing high-quality evidence of what works, how, why and at what cost. We believe that better and policy-relevant evidence will make development more effective and improve people's lives. 3ie scoping papers 3ie thematic window grant programmes typically start with a consultative process that includes a scoping study identifying the current state of impact-evaluation evidence in a particular sector. Scoping studies identify the promising questions for research synthesis and the priority questions for further impact-evaluation research. They analyse the existing supply of impact-evaluation and systematic-review evidence as well as the demand for such evidence from policymakers and programme managers. About this scoping paperThis paper provides an assessment of the supply of and demand for evidence on peacebuilding interventions in support of a joint 3ie -Innovations for Poverty Action -World Bank initiative called Evidence for Peacebuilding. The scoping paper is the key output of the stocktaking phase of the initiative, and the final publication reflects consultation that occurred after the draft paper was prepared and presented. All of the content is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not represent the opinions of 3ie, its donors or its Board of Commissioners. Any errors and omissions are also the sole responsibility of the authors. Any comments or queries should be directed to the corresponding author Annette N. Brown at abrown@3ieimpact.org. AcknowledgementsThis paper is part of a joint initiative of 3ie, Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA) and the World Bank. The work for this paper was funded by a contract from the World Bank.The scoping paper is based on three primary inputs: the evidence gap map, the portfolio review and the stakeholder survey. 3ie staff and consultants prepared the evidence gap map under the direction of Drew Cameron and Annette Brown. A separate report on the evidence gap map entitled Evidence for peacebuilding: an evidence gap map serves as a companion piece to this paper and is available as part of 3ie's Evidence Gap Map Report series. We would like to recognise Anjini Mishra, Mario Picon, Hisham Esper, Flor Calvo and Katia Peterson, who coauthored the gap map report.IPA staff prepared the portfolio review under the direction of Faith McCollister. 3ie staff, with IPA assistance, conducted and analysed the stakeholder survey, under the direction of Jennifer Ludwig. Annette Brown provided leadership and management over all inputs and the scoping paper itself.We are grateful to Jane Burke for research assistance.We would like to thank the Alliance for Peacebuilding, United States Institutes for Peace, the World Bank, the United Nations Peacebuilding Fund, and International Rescue Committee for sponsoring and hosting workshops that provided valuable inputs and feedback...

show abstract

Evidence for peacebuilding: an evidence gap map

Cited by 10 publications

References 3 publications

Addressing Violent Intergroup Conflict from the Bottom Up?

Addressing Violent Intergroup Conflict from the Bottom Up?

State-society relations in low- and middle-income countries: an evidence gap map

The current state of peacebuilding programming and evidence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About