From Data to Knowledge: Understanding peace and conflict from afar (seminar series)

本系列从联合国维和人员、援助人员、政府、研究人员和冲突分析人士日益感到困扰的一系列问题开始：我们如何了解我们对脆弱和受冲突影响的地区的了解，以及我们的理解在多大程度上反映和考虑了生活在这些地区的社区的观点和观点？该系列汇集了政策和实践领域的知名学者和合作伙伴--包括救助儿童会、英国政府(DFID和FCO)、经济合作与发展组织(OECD)和索马里非政府组织联盟(索马里NGOC)、内罗毕--将提供一套关键的创新平台，分析冲突知识是如何产生和传播的，以及对英国和海外的研究和政策有什么影响。这一探索是在西方政府和组织越来越重视在脆弱和受冲突影响的地区工作的背景下进行的。英国政府现在在法律上承诺将至少将国民总收入的0.7%用于国际发展，自本世纪头十年后期以来，英国政府一直在稳步重新将其援助组合的重点放在脆弱国家上，这些国家现在吸收了DFID预算的三分之一以上。类似的趋势在其他西方援助捐赠者和组织以及非政府组织和研究人员中也很明显，他们的资金往往与这些机构及其议程捆绑在一起。与联合国一起，发展中国家的军队也越来越多地参与脆弱地区和政治的维和和国家建设活动。然而，与此同时，也出现了一些问题，这些问题积极限制了西方参与者直接接触和理解生活在脆弱环境中的社区的能力。越来越多的联合国和援助人员现在成为冲突地区犯罪和恐怖组织的目标，这导致大多数西方组织引入了风险管理程序，最终减少了“国际”和“当地”之间的直接互动。这包括建立戒备森严的援助“大院”，为援助人员及其家人提供住所，从远处收集数据(例如，通过无人机或其他技术)，以及远程管理项目。因此，国际发展部的索马里办事处(该系列的一个项目合作伙伴)设在邻国肯尼亚。这种避险文化也逐渐削弱了西方研究人员和非政府组织在保险提供商、道德委员会或管理人员认为过于偏远或危险的地区生活和工作的能力。因此，这些社区也越来越依赖不断遥远的“当地”对话者和调解人链来收集数据或实施项目--在西方政治背景下，确保所有援助支付的明确和可衡量的发展结果是至高无上的。这一系列研究研讨会将提出并参与这些不同悖论中出现的几个关键问题和关切。最突出的是，哪些工具和方法可用于远程收集冲突数据，它们在多大程度上可以取代或替代更直接的信息收集形式？在收集和解释“地方知识”时，能够或应该在多大程度上反映不同的社会和文化理解？当地行为者在调解或抵制在其社区上和在其社区内产生知识方面发挥了什么作用？冲突“数据”是如何转化为冲突“知识”的？西方关于冲突地区的政策和研究在多大程度上考虑了当地的视角？这部电视剧涉及当代政策制定界的一系列重要辩论，以及一系列学科的全球学术研究，特别是政治学、国际关系学、发展研究、经济学和人类学。来自发展中世界的早期研究人员和学者的参与是该系列的一个主要重点，并增强了其实力和可信度。

This series begins with a set of questions which UN peacekeepers, aid workers, governments, researchers and conflict analysts are increasingly troubled by: how do we know what we know about fragile and conflict-affected regions and how far do our understandings reflect - and take account of - the views and perspectives of communities living in these regions? Bringing together leading scholars and partners in the worlds of policy and practice - including Save the Children, the UK Government (DFID and FCO), OECD and Somalia NGO Consortium (Somalia NGOC), Nairobi - the series will provide a critical and innovative set of fora for analysing how conflict knowledge is generated and disseminated - and with what implications for research and policy in the UK and abroad.This exploration comes in the context of a growing focus by Western governments and organizations on working on, and in, fragile and conflict-affected regions. The UK Government - now legally committed to spending at least 0.7% of GNI on international development - has steadily re-focused its aid portfolio around fragile states since the later 2000s and these countries now absorb over one-third of the DFID budget. Similar trends are apparent among other Western aid donors and organizations as well as among NGOs and researchers whose funding is often tied to these bodies and their agendas. Along with the UN, the militaries of developing states are also increasingly involved in peacekeeping and statebuilding exercises in fragile regions and polities.Alongside these developments, however, have emerged a number of issues which actively limit Western actors' ability to gain direct access to - and understandings of - communities living in fragile contexts. The growing number of UN and aid workers now being targeted by criminal and terrorist groups in conflict zones has led most Western organizations to introduce risk management procedures which ultimately reduce direct interaction between the 'international' and the 'local'. This includes the creation of heavily-fortified aid 'compounds' to house aid workers and their families, the collection of data from afar (via drones or other technologies, for example) and the remote management of projects. Thus DFID's Somalia Office (a Project Partner for the series) is based in neighbouring Kenya. This culture of risk aversion has also steadily come to curtail the ability of Western researchers and NGOs to live and work in regions viewed as too remote or dangerous by insurance providers, ethics committees or managers. Thus these communities also increasingly rely on ever-distant chains of 'local' interlocutors and mediators to gather data or implement projects - in a Western political context where ensuring clear and measurable developmental results for all aid disbursed is paramount.This series of research seminars will pose and engage with several key questions and concerns which emerge from these various paradoxes. Most prominently - what tools and methodologies can be used to collect conflict data remotely and to what extent can they replace or substitute more direct forms of information-gathering? To what extent can - or should - different social and cultural understandings be reflected in the collection and interpretation of 'local knowledge'? What role do local actors play in mediating or resisting the generation of knowledge on - and in - their communities? How is conflict 'data' transposed into conflict 'knowledge' and how far does Western policy and research on conflict regions take account of local perspectives?The series engages with a prominent set of debates in contemporary policy-making circles and global scholarship across a range of disciplines, notably Politics, International Relations, Development Studies, Economics and Anthropology. The participation of early-career researchers and scholars from the developing world is a key focus of the series and enhances its strength and credibility.