Why Should We Rethink Conflict Analysis? Deepening the Approach Through Local Knowledge
- Dilara Gök
- May 16
- 6 min read
Conflict analysis has long been a fundamental component in the fields of peacebuilding and development. However, at this point, treating conflict analysis merely as a technical toolkit is proving inadequate. Experiences from both local and international actors working on the ground clearly show the need to reconsider how these analytical processes are designed and implemented.
In our previous articles, we explored various tools for conflict analysis and discussed their practical applications. In this piece, we aim to broaden the frame: we propose reading conflict analysis not just as a technical activity, but as an approach, an ethical stance, and a continuous learning process.
In the late 1990s, a wave of peacebuilding and development programs implemented in conflict-affected societies often failed to produce the expected positive outcomes. In some cases, these interventions deepened social divisions or even contributed to the reproduction of violence. One of the main reasons was that these projects were designed with a strong interventionist focus and without sufficient consideration of local conflict dynamics. This recognition led to the reassessment of conflict analysis tools, the development of new ones, and the growing emphasis on conducting systematic analysis before intervention.
Out of these experiences emerged the "Do No Harm" approach, which reframed conflict analysis not only as a planning tool but also as an ethical imperative to prevent harm. Practitioners in the peace and development fields began to underline the importance of sensitivity to existing conflict dynamics, in addition to responding to needs. In other words, the goal of conflict analysis evolved: it is no longer just about identifying where problems exist, but also about understanding what types of interventions could transform them.
Shifting the Scale: From States to Communities
When we think of conflict, what often comes to mind are inter-state wars, armed groups, or international negotiations. In our trainings, participants frequently ask questions that relate to these large-scale, state-level conflicts. Yet conflict also takes place in more localized forms: in strained relationships between municipalities and residents, in the unequal distribution of social aid, or in cases of discrimination within schools. These local-level conflicts are critical because they directly affect the success of peacebuilding and development efforts.
As such, our analytical approaches must adjust to this scale. We need to ask not only "What happened?" but also "What is happening now? Why is it happening? Which dynamics are influencing it? Who is affected and in what ways?" These questions must be asked repeatedly, both before and during interventions, and they must be shaped not solely from the perspective of outside experts who may over-rely on their own knowledge, but in partnership with local knowledge. Put differently, rethinking our analytical approaches requires us to focus not only on what we already know, but on what we do not know, and how we might learn it through local insight.
In doing so, it is equally important to expand our lens to include not only conflict drivers, but also constructive forces, those known as "local capacities for peace." As Lisa Schirch explains in her article "Conflict Analysis: A System's Approach," these capacities, such as neighborhood relationships, mediation roles played by religious leaders, or the ability of youth to engage in organized dialogue hold significant potential for conflict transformation. Therefore, analytical processes should map not only problems, but also the foundations of possible peace.
Perception, Framing, and Blind Spots
Every conflict analysis inevitably reflects a particular perspective. People tend to define conflict based on their own position, and often find it difficult or are unwilling to see the realities perceived by the other side. This can lead to analyses that are partial or biased.
A metaphor I came across in Schirch's article illustrates this point beautifully: Photographers use different lenses to view the world, and each lens reveals something different. A narrow lens emphasizes a particular detail, while a wide-angle lens offers a broader view. Similarly, the tools we choose for conflict analysis highlight certain aspects of the conflict while obscuring others. This is why it is essential to use multiple tools and diverse perspectives—to achieve a fuller and fairer understanding of the conflict.
Where Does the Data Come From? Who Is Asking the Questions?
The validity of data used in conflict analysis depends not only on its content but also on how, by whom, and for what purpose it was collected. Field research repeatedly shows that people respond to questions not just based on the question itself, but also on who is asking it. The interviewer’s intent, institutional affiliation, position, or even nationality can shape the answers received. This makes it essential to consider whose voices are heard, whose are excluded, and which realities are being foregrounded or backgrounded in the analysis.
A telling example comes from two conflict analysis studies conducted in Afghanistan in 2011. One was carried out by USAID with external experts; the other by local researchers. The USAID-led analysis concluded that unemployment was a primary driver of conflict and accordingly allocated significant resources to job-creation programs. In contrast, local researchers identified government corruption and violence by foreign troops particularly night raids on civilians as central drivers. From their perspective, the roots of conflict were not only economic but also deeply political and tied to violations of trust and rights.
This stark divergence illustrates the knowledge hierarchies embedded in conflict analysis. Often, local knowledge and lived experience are marginalized or dismissed. Yet the research process does not only gather data; it also shapes how conflict is understood, and ultimately, how interventions are designed. Analytical tools do not generate "correct" or "neutral" outcomes on their own. Their effectiveness is tied to the diversity of sources, openness to the field, and whether participatory methods are meaningfully incorporated.
Moreover, flawed analysis can lead to programs that do more harm than good. As seen in the Afghanistan case, programs based on outsider-driven assumptions risk ignoring real grievances, undermining their own legitimacy, and damaging trust. In some contexts, communities report a sense of abandonment, noting that external actors often leave during crises reinforcing perceptions of distance and lack of accountability. All of this reminds us that conflict analysis is not merely a technical procedure; it is also an ethical relationship. Those conducting the analysis are responsible not just for asking the right questions but also for being conscious of the effects the process may have. Conflict analysis itself is a form of intervention. Which questions do we ask? Who is included in the process? Whose voice is amplified? Whose is left out? Reflecting on these questions helps us understand how analysis shapes and is shaped by conflict dynamics.
Conflict analysis is itself an intervention. Therefore, conflict analysis is not only a process of producing knowledge; it is also a space where power relations, structures of trust, and forms of representation are actively constructed and reconstructed.
Conclusion: Conflict Analysis as an Attitude
Today, it is not enough to treat conflict analysis as a pre-programming checklist. It must be recognized as an ethical stance, a learning process, and a form of intervention in its own right. The way we analyze shapes the way we see conflict and, in turn, the kind of solutions we pursue. What matters most is not just which tool we use, but with whom we use it and what we are trying to see.
Conflict analysis is, ultimately, a process of co-thinking and co-learning. Each analysis is an opportunity not only to map the structure of a conflict, but also to create common ground for transformation.
And finally, every conflict is local. Every meaningful solution must begin with understanding the wisdom of that locality. As Paulo Freire emphasized in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, the transformation of conflict begins with people analyzing their own reality. This approach reminds us that communities are not just passive recipients of interventions, but agents of knowledge and makers of their own futures. Conflict analysis rooted in local knowledge offers a justice-oriented and transformative path forward.
Thank you for reading our post! At Conflictus, we eagerly await your feedback and insights.
Dilara Gök
Conflictus Conflict Resolution Training and Consultancy
🔗 Learn more about our services: Conflictus Website: https://www.conflictus.co/en
📧 Contact us: info@conflictus.co
References:
Schirch, L. (2022). Conflict Analysis: A System’s Approach, in Mac Ginty, R. & Wanis-St. John, A. (Eds.), Contemporary Peacemaking (3rd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Barakat, S. & Waldman, T. (2013). Conflict analysis frameworks: stocktaking and scrutiny, University of York.
OECD-DAC (1996). Shaping the 21st Century: The Contribution of Development Co-operation.
UNSSC (2016). Conflict Analysis Handbook.
Saferworld (2004). Conflict-sensitive approaches to development, humanitarian assistance and peacebuilding.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Herder and Herder
댓글