Track III Dialogues in Ukraine: Research Report

Kyselova, Tatiana; Kraus, Anne Isabel; Kirchhoff, Lars; Dobeneck, Julia von

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3167698

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the interviewees, 36% belong to the professional community of mediators and dialogue facilitators; other target groups included international governmental and nongovernmental organizations, donor agencies, Ukrainian government, and civil society. The lists of interviewees, their demographic characteristics, and the sample questions are presented in the full research report (Kyselova, Kraus, Kirchhoff, & von Dobeneck, 2017). An additional seven in-depth interviews and one focus group with nine participants were conducted in 2018–2019 in Kyiv as a follow-up study focusing on the impact and inclusivity of dialogues, addressing the same categories of actors and relying on the same sampling techniques as the main study.…”

Section: Method: Empirical Sources and Inductive Action Research Appr...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In line with inductive and action research traditions, this study relied on the Ukrainian understanding of dialogue as “a specially prepared meeting between people or groups of people facilitated by a third party with the aim of building mutual trust and/or making a joint decision” (Kyselova et al, 2017). Later, Ukrainian facilitators formalized a similar definition of dialogue in their Dialogue Standards (Institute for Peace and Common Ground, 2018, p. 5).…”

Section: Method: Empirical Sources and Inductive Action Research Appr...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Inclusion dilemmas in peacebuilding and dialogues in Ukraine.

Holper¹,

Kyselova²

2021

Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article aims to elucidate the reasons underlying the lack of inclusion of Ukrainians with "pro-Russian" political views in peacebuilding and dialogues in Ukraine. Based on an analysis of empirical data from interviews and focus groups, we argue that the following 4 factors contribute to patterns of willful and unwillful exclusion during facilitated dialogues: (a) the absence of a political will and a societal agenda for inclusion of people holding "pro-Russian" political views, (b) high security risks connected with Russian hybrid warfare, (c) difficulties in identifying this group and the loss of their agency after 2014, and (d) the risk of their identity being transformed, thereby again de facto excluding "pro-Russian" views. By providing a first mapping of the observed factors and underlying dilemmas, the article aims to raise critical awareness of these difficulties in the field. By formulating the key open questions, it seeks to stimulate honest and constructive reflection among dialogue practitioners, civil society organizations, international donors, policymakers, and scholars in order to scrutinize and redesign inclusion approaches in Ukraine with the aim of better responding to the realities of the conflict and the dialogue system of this country. Public Significance StatementThis study suggests that the following factors contribute to an exclusion of Ukrainians holding "pro-Russian" political views during facilitated dialogues: (1) the absence of a political will and a societal agenda for their inclusion; (2) high security risks connected with Russian hybrid warfare; (3) difficulties in identifying "pro-Russian" group and the loss of their agency after 2014; (4) the risk of their identity being transformed during facilitated dialogues.

show abstract

Section: Method: Empirical Sources and Inductive Action Research Appr...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Method: Empirical Sources and Inductive Action Research Appr...mentioning

confidence: 99%