Reina C. Neufeldt’s research while affiliated with University of Waterloo and other places

Indigenous resurgence movements in states like Canada and the U.S. have challenged immigrant and settler groups to confront their presence on colonized lands, and transform their relations with land and with Indigenous peoples. Part of this process of re-evaluation entails immigrant groups within the national order considering the ways in which they become implicated in the reproduction of what Patrick Wolfe (2006) calls ‘the logic of elimination’. Taking inspiration from Jodi Byrd’s challenge to rethink dichotomies in settler colonialism, and utilizing Michael Rothberg’s (2019) framing of ‘the implicated subject’, this paper explores the conditions under which Russian Mennonites immigrated to Canada in the 1870s. It traces the ways that Mennonite reserve communities were subtly and overtly incorporated into settler colonial formations and its binaries, helping to illuminate the power and pull of everyday economic aspects of settling entangled with racial and political settler colonial formations. This examination of a racially privileged but self-identifying dissenting community explores the ways in which settler colonial nation building works to subtly and overtly incorporate populations into settler-native binaries despite their professed innocence and even dissent.

The emphasis on local or hybrid efforts in peacebuilding literature brings front and centre the importance of being rooted within a particular context, with leadership and vision for social change and justice proffered by local actors. This is the same emphasis found in development literature and a necessary foundation for transformation. Scholars and practitioners nevertheless also note a role for outsiders in supporting local efforts (eg Lederach in 2005). Yet a significant challenge arises for outsiders, and to some extent local actors: how do you know what was tried or is underway that you might support or from which you might learn? This paper reports findings from a collaborative research project that examined the gap between the practice of peacebuilding locally and internationally available ‘knowledge’ via publications produced on local peacebuilding in Jos, Nigeria, between 2001 and 2008. It identifies a staggering gap between efforts and knowledge in the form of publications. The paper discusses the implications of the findings in terms of what it means for outsiders when thinking about helping resource local transformation efforts.

Participatory action research fits well with conflict resolution and peacebuilding; it is used by scholar-practitioners as part of field-based practice efforts that contribute to transforming conflict and add to scholarly knowledge. However, as Cynthia Chataway’s analysis of a participatory action research project undertaken with the Mohawk community of Kahnawake indicated, there are considerable constraints on mutual inquiry when it occurs in settings marked by historical oppression, distrust of outsiders and internal division; these constraints require the model to respond to the community context. Drawing on this insight, this paper explores a recent collaborative, community-based research that was part of a larger youth-centered peacebuilding and security initiative in Haiti. The initiative involved partners from Canada supporting a non-governmental organization and youth in four communities to engage in action research, under the umbrella of community-based research, as part of the 26-month project. The article draws out insights on ways in which the community-based research approach adapted to the conflict context, and reflects on the ways in which this form of engaged scholarship adds to knowledge in conflict resolution and peacebuilding.

This paper explores the moral values that are embedded in peacebuilding funder discourse that affect the focus and locus of peacebuilding projects. The paper analyses the moral values embedded in a set of USAID grant solicitations between 2008 and 2014, which focus on inter-communal relationship-building within peacebuilding projects. This set of solicitations is intriguing because it suggests that there are efforts underway to fund creative, locally led peacebuilding efforts in ways that contradict general bureaucratic processes and norms. The efforts, however, are nascent and point to a series of tensions involved in large bureaucracies funding peacebuilding. Ultimately, the paper argues that particular duties and consequences are prioritised, which limits authentic relationships and genuine responses to needs.

This article explores the ethics of peacebuilding. It argues that the perspectives of two moral theories currently dominate peacebuilding discourse: duty-based and consequentialist thinking. While these moral theory perspectives possess merits there are also important limits, which are particularly important for peacebuilding. The article argues that if peacebuilding is genuinely to contribute to collective flourishing then we need to recognize and act upon a more holistic ethics of peacebuilding practice. Considerations drawn from ethics of care and virtue ethics are therefore proposed to expand considerations of what constitutes ‘good’ and ‘right’ within peacebuilding interventions.

Interfaith dialogue garnered considerable positive attention and derision after September 11, 2001. This article critically examines expectations of interfaith dialogue by clarifying explicit and implicit suppositions of how and why things will change because of dialogue. Three broad approaches to dialogue are identified: theological, political, and peacebuilding. Hypotheses about change within each approach are identified and explored through case examples. The article argues that while interfaith dialogue can contribute to personal, relational, and structural change, each of the three approaches does not do so equally. The article concludes that proactive reflection on theories of change within dialogue is necessary for interfaith dialogue to achieve its potential to build peace.

Linking peacebuilding and development is an emerging area of specialisation. Changes in the political, social, and economic contexts, the intangible dimensions of attitudinal and relational change, and the need to take a long-term perspective in order to capture the effects of programming all pose substantial challenges to peacebuilding programming for development agencies. This article provides a series of guiding questions for evaluation which can also be used in the planning and monitoring stages of a peacebuilding or conflictsensitive development programming. 1 Drawing upon the work of scholars and practitioners working in the fields of development and peacebuilding, the article presents a process to generate strategic building blocks for a comprehensive approach to evaluating peacebuilding programming.