Responding to tensions and violence between ethnic groups around the world, a growing number of non-governmental organizations have developed innovative programs and approaches to help resolve conflicts, prevent violence, and promote more cooperative relationships between groups. Each intervention program identifies and interprets the causes and conditions leading to ethnic conflicts, and sets a unique course that, if followed, should result in powerful change to resolve these conflicts. The diverse approaches they use often seek to address both diffuse tensions and specific conflicts, make short- and long-term changes, and influence those who directly participate in the intervention as well as the larger conflict situation.
These programs offer many success stories in transforming people's attitudes and behaviors, intergroup relationships, and social institutions and policies, yet few efforts have been made to recognize and compare the variety of theories of change that shape these interventions. This short essay provides a conceptual framework for articulating and mapping programs' theories of change - or the core, often implicit, assumptions about how change happens that that guide practitioner's intervention design. It briefly reviews a variety of theories of change for resolving ethnic conflict in light of scholarly research and theory -- particularly in the field of psychology.
Drawn from the literature on program evaluation, a theory of change refers to the causal processes through which change comes about as a result of a program's strategies and action.[1] It relates to how practitioners believe individual, intergroup, and social/ systemic change happens and how, specifically, their actions will produce positive results.
For example, a theory of change for a post-conflict healing and reconciliation intervention might suggest that sharing personal stories of trauma and injustice in small, ethnically mixed groups, combined with dialogue, personal reflection, and vulnerability to emotion, can lead to individual transformation. Small group processes help participants develop empathy, recognize common humanity, and build positive relationships across ethnic or group lines. These cooperative relationships are powerful engines for community and structural change. They can also help establish public rituals and symbolic actions that acknowledge group suffering, offer apology, and signify future good will to foster social healing and structural change.
In contrast, a theory of change for a conflict management initiative working on similar issues in the same region might focus on creating new forums that bring influential representatives of stakeholders together to explore a new analysis of the problem, develop cooperative problem-solving skills, and create joint action plans. These new forums, skills, partnerships, and joint action planning interrupt old, habituated patterns of conflictual interaction between individuals and groups and offer ongoing mechanisms for institutional and policy change.
In general, the theories of change have not been adequately articulated or described.[2] This precludes real evaluation of programmatic assumptions and activities, hinders efforts to test the relative effectiveness of different approaches under specific conditions, and ultimately limits the revision and refinement of both theory and practice. Used in combination with Argyris and Schon's (1974) overlapping work on theories of practice, examining programs' theories of change provides a useful framework for differentiating program approaches, promoting the appropriate selection and support of diverse interventions, and advancing research that both refines theoryand improves practice[3].
Programs often have complex and overlapping assumptions about the causes and effective responses to ethnic conflict, yet a comparison across programs reveals that programs name and frame both the problem and their response in distinct ways. Relatively few typologies exist in the scholarly and programmatic literature to describe these different approaches. For example, in his article, Creating the Conditions for Peacemaking, Ross reviewed the conflict intervention literature and identified six theories of practice for ethnic conflict resolution in international settings.[4] These included: 1) Community Relations, 2) Principled Negotiation, 3) Human Needs Theory, 4) Psychoanalytically Informed Identity Theory, 5) Intercultural Miscommunication, and 6) Conflict Transformation. His analysis compared these theories of practice along the dimensions of: a) the assumed nature and causes of ethnic conflict; b) program goals; c) effects on participants in the intervention; d) mechanisms for achieving effects; e) transfer or impact on the wider conflict; and f) similarities across theories.
Building on this framework, Shapiro conducted field research comparing theories of practice and change for fifteen programs that address ethnic and racialized tensions or conflicts in the U.S.[5] The typology emerging from interviews, observations, and reviews of program documents in that study included six different theories of practice and change: 1) Prejudice Reduction; 2) Healing and Reconciliation; 3) Anti-Racism; 4) Diversity/ Multiculturalism; 5) Democracy Building; and 6) Conflict Management. These theories of practice and change were compared along the dimensions of: 1) problem framing; 2) goals and intended effects; 3) theories of how change happens; 4) intervention framing; and 5) theoretical roots of the program. Differences between approaches examined in that study are summarized briefly in Figure 1.
This typology briefly highlights aspects of interventions addressing racial and ethnic tensions in the U.S., but further research is needed to describe and comparatively evaluate the range of theories of change in conflict resolution interventions outside of the U.S. (See Figure 1)
It is important to note that the theories of change in these typologies are not necessarily contradictory -- they may instead just draw upon different theories and traditions, highlight different aspects of the conflict, and emphasize different priorities for resolution. Typologies such as this one should not be used to confine or delimit any program, nor fuel debates over approaches. Instead, they provide an opportunity for comparative analysis that aims to stimulate further reflection and discussion about the evolving shape and development of this field and deepen understandings about the contributions of each approach.
To read the full article, visit Beyond Intractability:
http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/theories-of-change