PEACE RESEARCH IS NOT ACADEMIC David Kriegew

I wish to stress in this paper that effective peace research requires stepping beyond the constraints of academia and applying the techniques of peace research to peace action strategies. Rather than working toward the professionalization of peace research, we should work toward the expansion of peace research manpower by deprofessionalization ; academic degrees and norms of “publish or perish” are poor criteria for success in a value oriented field as is peace research.

There is an unavoidable tension, in my opi- nion, between commitment to peace and the oc- cupation of research. Within academia research can too easily become simply a means to higher status within the system rather than a contribu- tion toward peace. The researcher committed to peace as a prime value must continually evaluate the relationship of his work to peace. When I tried to ra ise the basic question of the relationship of research to peace a t a recent meeting of peace researchers I received two responses, neither of which I could personally accept as valid.

The first response was related to a paper presented by a State Department official on an analysis of foreign attitudes toward the United States. My specific question was this: How does it further the cause of peace or, in fact, relate to peace in any way, to know what attitudes are associated with favorable attitudes toward the IT. S. in other countries? The answer from the panel chairman, a “diplomat in residence,” was that peace is like motherhood, an emotional issue not to be taken too seriously.

The second answer to this question gave the appearance of being more sophisticated, a t least within a social science context. The response was that “the physics of peace must precede the engineering of peace.” While this answer has a clever ring to it, I find it dangerous in that it allows the researcher to avoid or a t least put off examining the relationship of his research to peace. Adopting this perspective creates the academic illusion that one has no responsibility for acting upon his beliefs until “sufficient” data has been collected. It leads to the situation described by Thomas Lough:

W e (peace researchers) got into irrevelance. trivia, and precious for- mulations and analyses that have little or nothing to do with the problems humans face this year. The peace

research journals with whic*h I arri fa mi 1 ia r ;I re W;I s tc!l;mls, spot, tctd oc- casionally wit,h 1ihcr;il and sometimes radical rhetoric. A s far as I ran scc they have almost. nothing to do with the press- ing, suicidal problems pcople on this earth face.’

This is ;i strong c r i i ! ( l i i t L , 1 u d t h i x i . + . ; I W ( ~ ’ 1 .

tainly signs here and thew o i i 1 IIV p t i : ~ c ~ x rc!scarch landscape that it is not ;tltogcthr~r ;ic~-tir;itc: one sign is the publication of Imigh’s articlc! itself in a peace research journal. The overall emphasis in peace research, however, seems to manifest a greater concern with the details of methodology than with root questions of linkages to peace and social change. This approach to peace research becomes legit imated by focusing on the “physics” of peace as opposed to peace engineer- ing, and leaving technology (or action) for another day or, a t least, another person. I cannot help feeling, although I would hope I might be convinced otherwise, that the emphasis on peace “physics” which is manifested broadly in the peace research “community” represents a cor- responding deemphasis on peace.

In the next section of this paper I will iwicw the discussion of the inapplicahilitv of p t w t ’ research to governmental policy formation and, in the following section, suggest the need for research on peace action strategies as a form of peace research which is immediately applicable. I will then discuss approaches to the application of peace research to assess peace action effec- tiveness. In the final two sections I will describe the characteristics of a research-activist com- munity aimed a t deprofessionalizing peace research and democratizing its organization, and discuss briefly the characterist ics of the research deriving from this research-activist community. * * *

Anatol Rapoport began t,he discussion of applying peace research in an article notable for its pessimistic assessment of the current situa- tion. ,Fo r Rapoport the problem confronting peace researchers was not a lack of knowledge about what could be done to insure peace. The knowledge, he believed, was available. The im- portant question a s he saw it was how this knowledge could be used, and he concluded that the major impediment to implementing the fin- dings of peace researchers was the lack of in- stitutions available for performing this function. Rapoport posed the problem in this way:

~ ~

* David Krieger is a member of the faculty of the Department of International Relations a t California State University, San Francisco, On leave, he is working on Pacem in Maribus (peace in the oceans) projects a t the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, Santa Barbara, California and is also co-editing a book with Elisabeth Borgese on the subject of world order and the oceans.

‘“Peace Research and the Movement: No Meeting Place?” Peace and Change, Vol. I, No. 1 (Fall , 19721, p 55.

- 68 -

Not onlv a re the institut,ions required to i 111 pI cmen t such s o h tions nonexistent , h u t also prospects of creating them are nil . because decision-makers on whom institutional changes depend and whose intwests may be affected by them are recqt ive to only a very limited range of advice.’

The consideration of the applicability of peace research was carried forward by George Kent who came to the defense of the undertaking. Kent , responding directly to Rapoport, stated “thc important question to be posed is not, can peace rese;ireh be applied, but how can it be applied most effectively?“ ’ He concluded that t,he institutions which are needed are those which allow for communication between peace researchers and government policy makers. Ac- cording to Kent, ‘the soundest institutional basis for expanding the application of peace studies would be the improvement and creation of in- stitutions which. rather than dividing the two, would facilitate communication between peace researchers and government policy makers.”‘ The question naturally arises as to w’lat the pay- off to t.he government elite would be to move peace researchers into closer proximity. The “good intentions“ of peace researchers would seem hardly sufficient.

Most governments already have policies on how peace may be attained which are based on an underlying theory of peace. President Nixon, for example. has articulated his theory of a “lasting peace” as one guided by three basic princaiples of foreign policy: partnership, strength. L i r t d ;i willingness to negotiate. I t is Nix- on’s relianc*tl o n strengt,h which is perhaps most common arnong government decision makers, anti inost dangerous in its implications for peace. Nevertheless. i t is an articulated cornerstone of Nison’s perspective and plan for peace.

l’eace researchers should take care not to believe that only they have the tools to develop pease theory. A primary responsibility of the peace researcher should be to employ the tools and techniques of research to attack the questionable theory of policy makers. But how does the researcher communicate with the govtsrrimont? The answer would seem to be that a t present he doesn’t, a t least not very effective- lv .

Thomas Robinson of the RAND Corporation has explored difficulties in communicating quan- titative international research to government of- ficials. Among the problem areas he listed were lack of policy relevance of studies, busy schedules of decision makers, lack of interest in “academic” journals, methodological im- palatability, apparent pedestrian nature of the conclusions and the seeming unimportance of the studies. Robinson concluded I ‘ . . . that much, perhaps most, of the (often excellent) quan- titative work done by academicians in recent years has been of marginal influence in the government - where, in many cases, it was hoped to have a substantial effect.”‘

In a second study of the lack of impact of in- ternational relations analysts on foreign policy, Davis Bobrow suggested seven lessons drawn from recent experience :

1. The impact of sellers (external analysts) depends on the presence of a number of com- petitive buyers (policy organizations) ;

2. Purchase of analysis has little implication for foreign policy impact;

3. The structure of policy organizations con- strains the nature of the analyses which can have impact:

4. Basic research products a re not policy products :

5. An interest in policy is not a product orien- tation:

6. Without some baseline of previous perfor- mance, no one will know whether a product of international relations analysis does make a contribution:

7 . Data bases a re an important element in generating products but they are not in and of themselves policy products.6

Bobrow goes on to suggest a number of in- itiatives which international relations analysts could pursue to increase their influence on government decision makers. In the end, however. his initiatives a re all dependent on government receptivity, and there seems to be little that researchers themselves can do to in- crease demand for their products among govern- ment officials. While researchers may be able to

‘“Is Peace Research Applicable?” Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. XIV, No. 2 (June 19701, p. 280.

3“The Application of Peace Studies,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. XV, No. 1 (March 1971), p. 51.

IIbid., p. 52.

’“Why Quantitative Studies of International Relations Are Not More Widely Used in the Government and What Can Be Done About It,” (Paper delivered a t the Fifth Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association West in San Francisco, March 26, 1971), p. 2.

L“Analysis and Foreign Policy: Some Lessons and Initiatives,” (Paper delivered a t the 1971 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, September 7-11, 1971 ).

- 69 -

package their "product" more effectively by summarizing and limiting jargon, it is unlikely that they can create a demand for what they have to sell when its content undercuts currently cherished theories. It must be realized that inter- national analysts, including peace researchers, have very little political clout, and they a re not likely to be able to create a demand for their ser- vices within the current structure of most governments.

It is ironic that much of the U. S. government money dispensed for so-called peace research in the past has been administered by the Depart- ment of Defense. With its massive 7% billion dollar budget for research and development, the I h D can afford to buy selected peace research. The DoD allocation stands in sharp contrast to the total budget of 10 million dollars for the operation of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency which the Administration has recently t r i ed to r e d u c e by 3 3 p e r c e n t . O t h e r governments. particularly in Scandanavia, have been more receptive to peace research findings, but by and large governments have not been prepared to translate peace research into peace policy or even to give peace research an ade- quate hearing.

* * * What can peace researchers do with their

research output i f they cannot influence governments? One option - but a poor one - is to be content to talk to each other through x w k m i c journals. I would hope that this is not in itself a satisfactory solution for most of us. When we speak only to each other it is like being caught in an endless feedback loop on the com- puter. While maintaining open communication channels with other peace researchers, each of us must attempt to break out of the feedback loop. Another option - and this one I would ad- vocate .- would be to apply peace research know- how to peace action strategies. Numerous groups are engaged in activities designed to change community. national and international decision- nuking structures so that human and financial resources are allocated for peace rather than war and war preparation. To help these groups to increase their effectiveness is to engage in peace research which is immediately applicable,

According to Bill Eckhardt "activists need ;rnd want research done on the effects of their ac- tions."' While I am not convinced that this is grnerally the case, particularly with more radical action groups, I think it is true in enough ( w e s that a useful field of activity lies open to

the peace researcher. A s one simple example of research on a peace action I will discuss 6riefly some research which I did on the Another Mother for Peace (AMP) consumer campaign against weapons producers.H

In studying this peace action I lound that the letter writing messages were not penetrating to their targets in sufficient numbers to have an effect. I suggested as an alt,ernative course of ac- tion that AMP focus on only a single target and switch their form of action to a boycott. While the leadership of A M P was in agreement with limiting the number of targets, they rejected as outside their scope of activity the switch in tac- tics to a boycott. At a minimum, the organization was able to get some relatively fast feedback on the success of their campaign, and plan alter- nations in their strategy for that campaign or future campaigns based on the research findings. The research strategy, incidentally, was ex- tremely simple. It involved only the systematic questionning of the campaign targets as to the number of messages they had received. From these figures it was easy to calculate that the AMP headquarters had stimulated only a small portion of their membership to action, and that the responses that were stimulated were scattered among the numerous targets of the campaign so as to pose a minimal threat to each.

The research on Another Mother of Peace is presented as only one example of researcher- activist interaction. It is a first step toward answering the important question posed by Bert Roling: "llnder what condition - a s to quality and quantity - can peace action (in its broadest meaning of teaching, information, protest) be effective?"" Obviously the answer to this ques- tion requires a great deal more research on the effects of various tried, and as yet untried, forms of peace action. Roling states:

Imagination and verification (testing) are needed. W e have to find out whether means of hard peace action exist which are not counter-productive for reason of their repulsiveness. What will be the effect if the peace action violates the norms of bourgeois decency? In what direction will the effect of a 'shock' go? Polarizing and antagonizing? Or, uniting and convincing? W e don't know. But we know for sure that here lies a problem which deserves the un- ited attention of peace researchers and peace activists."' Aside from providing feedback to peace ac-

'"Symbiosis Between Peace Research and Peace Activism," Journal of Peace Research, 1971 ( I ) , p. 67.

"The Another Mother for Peace Consumer Campaign - a Campaign that Failed," Journal of Peace Research,

'"Thc Contents of Peace Research," (Paper delivered a t the Fourth General Conference of the International I ' rwe Research Association in Bled, Yugoslavia, October 22-25, 1971 1, p. 14. '"Ibid.

1971 ( 2 ) , pp. 163-66.

- 70 -

tion groups on the effectiveness of their actions, there are two additional levels on which peace research on the effects of peace action may be useful. In the first instance, if research can im- prove the effectiveness of peace actions, it may lead to more effective pressures on government for institutions to make peace research more directly applicable at this level. That is, while in- stitutions may not currently be available for transforming peace research into peace action at the government level, they may be possible through more effective peace action strategies aimed at their achievement. The institutionaliza- tion of a Department of Peace is one example of a project which, in my opinion, is deserving of combined researcher-activist attention and in- terac tion.

A final, and perhaps the most important, consideration of research on peace actions is the need for a theory of peace action effectiveness. A t this level the gathering of systematic research on the effects of peace actions should generate tested propositions on the conditions un- der which various forms of peace action may be effective. Theoretic statements linking action with response under specified conditions can then serve as a framework for the planning of future peace action strategies.

* * * In this section I.will put forward a few ideas

on approaches to the evaluation of peace action strategies. The first and most important point is that the researcher must become involved in the action group, and not restrict his activities to the role of outside “expert.” Critical findings will be more likely to influence peace action strategies if the researcher is himself perceived to be ac- tively committed to the goals of the action.

A second important point is that activist groups must be convinced to make explicit both the targets and the goals of their actions. That is, activists must specify what effects they wish to achieve on whom. Consideration should be given to both short- and long-range goals. The target groups of the action should be specified and the desired effects on each target perhaps broken down into categories of cognition, affect and behavior. For some targets the desired effect may be only the introduction of new information, while for others it may be attitude change or a specific behavior. The following chart may be suggested as a way of conceptualizing more clearly the goals of peace actions.

TARGETS

3 Behavioral

1. Cognitive 2. Affective

(Long-range 1

~~

3. Behavioral After articulating their goals as best they

can, activists should be pressed to make some ordering among the goals. The consideration of goals and their ordering may lead activist groups to a more specific tailoring of their action strategies to achieve certain goals. For example, rather than trying to reach many targets with the same kind of action, they may find it more ap- propriate to aim quite different actions or messages at different targets in order to achieve the same result.

I I I

In most cases it will not be possible for researchers to evaluate long-range goals directly because of time lag in the appearance of the in- tended effects of the action. In order to deal with this problem, researchers should encourage ac- tivists to consider to the extent possible long- range goals in terms of a series of short-range effects. Researchers may then evaluate both the degree of achievement of the desired short-range effects, and the relationship between short-range effects and the long-range goals. The evaluation of the relationship between short- and long-range goals may be best accomplished under laboratory conditions which are controlled and intensive. This type of research would aid in ac- tion strategy evaluation which might otherwise be postponed until some indefinite future time.

When researchers work closely with action groups and know that an action is planned, they may take measurements prior to an action and then following the action to evaluate shift in belief, attitude or behavior. If it is not possible to take measurements before an action, then the use of non-target control groups may serve a comparative function for the purposes of evalua- tion.

One final suggestion which I would make in regard to research on peace action strategies is that the research design be broad enough to evaluate both the intended effects of the action and the unintended or side-effects as well. The evaluation of side-effects will require +he in- vestigation of the faH-out of peace activity on non-target groups as well as the additional but unintended effects on target groups. The gather- ing of information on the unintended effects of peace actions will certainly provide important inputs toward a theory of peace action effec- tiveness.

- 71 -

* * * To become seriously involved in the assess-

ment of peace action effectiveness more peace research manpower is needed, and less academic elitism. I will attempt to describe in this section the type of non-academic organization which I feel would be most conducive to effective research on peace action. The organziation - which I would describe as a research-activist community - is not meant to imply the necessity or even the desirability of community living, nor to exclude those researchers who find it useful to maintain ties with traditional academic organizations. The research-activist community which I e n v i s i o n would h a v e t h e s e characteristics: it would be non-hierarchical, heterogeneous, flexible and open.

The lack of hierarchy would extend across all dimensions, the most important of which are decision-making, task orientation and salary. Policy-making would be a shared enterprise with all members of the community participating equally. Administrative tasks would be shared and frequently rotated as would clerical, janitorial and other community tasks. Salaries would be equalized within a ration of two or three to one, and based primarily on need as opposed to task orientation. This is, there would be no built- in economic bias which favored researchers, for example over secretaries or administrators over researchers; conceptually this difficulty is eliminated by the policy of the sharing of all tasks within the community.

A second feature of the,organization is that it be heterogeneous to the extent possible on at least these dimensions: nationality, class, race, age, sex and world view. The heterogeneity then forms the basis of the consideration of research- action plans through means of the Dialogue. The Dialogue must be an on-going community func- tion, in fact, the root community function from which all other activities spring. Research and action plans should be continually exposed to the sc(rutiny of the Dialogue, and heterogeneity in the Dialogue should provide security against one’s biases going unchallenged by like-minded thinkers. With regard to peace research it is perhaps particularly important that heterogenei- ty extend across national and bloc boundaries to provide a global context which is the boundary within which peace must operate.

A third feature of the organization is that it be flexible. There must be room for the in- dividuals within the community to follow their own lights with the restriction only that all pro- jects be periodically exposed to the scrutiny of the Dialogue. Flexibility must of necessity be a controlling value of the community in order to achieve maximum individual freedom without sacrificing maximum individual responsihility to the community.

Flexibility is already foreshadowed to a large degree by the dissolution of rigid role struc- tures. The lack of hierarchical structuring in the community should at least provide the basis for community f lexibi l i ty ( a s opposed to bureaucratic rigidity).

The final organizational feature that I would emphasize is that it be open to both new ideas and personnel. The community should be con- stantly attempting to deal with new ideas through the process of the Dialogue. To facilitate this process, the Dialogue should be thought of as a channel connecting the community with other individuals and organizations. The community should on a regular basis exercise prerogatives to invite guests to the Dialogue in order both to learn from them, and to expose them (educationally) to the work of the community.

The second aspect of organizational openness is to insure that there will be regular oppor- tunities for new persons to join the community. This may require that there be a certain predetermined “length of residence,” or, as a minimum, plans for extended sabbaticals at regular intervals. The strategy for bringing new personnel into the community would be, as all decisions, one for the community itself to make. Here. as in all elements of community decision- making. flexibility would remain a guiding prin- ciple.

To me, the type of organization I have described above sounds ideal. It’s difficulties, and I’m sure there would still be many, including the important problem of financing, can only emrege in practice, or perhaps, to some degree. in Dialogue about the conceptualization. I believe that the sort of organization I have described will not come about by the remoulding of existing in- stitutions. we will have the sort of organization I am describing only by the pioneering acts of per- sons dedicated to achieving this brand of com- munity.

The primary value which peace research is aimed at achieving is. of course, peace. It should be clear. though, that peace cannot stand in isola- tion from other values such as development, human and environmental welfare and freedom from oppression. A s a minimum. the in- terrelationships of values recognized in the Preamble to the Preliminary Draft of a World Constitution should be given consideration:

“The people of the earth having agreed

in spiritual excellence and physical welfare is the common goal of mankind;

that universal peace is the prerequisite for the pursuit of that goal;

that justice in turn is the prerequisite of Deace, and Deace and justice stand or fall

* * *

that the advancement of man

together . . .”I1

”Borgese, Elisabeth (ed.), A Constitution for the World, Santa Barbara: Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, 1965, p. 26.

- 72 -

Unfortunately, it would seem we are still a long way from achieving universal consensus on the common goals of mankind. Nevertheless, this is a subject deserving of considerable attention in the community Dialogue, and the recognition of the value orientation of the research should be made explicit. I think that it is becoming abun- dantly clear that the pretext of “value-free” social science is simply a myth which supports an orientation toward preserving the values of the status quo, and need not be argued at length here.

The second quality of the research deriving from the research-activist community is that it should be accessible. That is to say that it should be openly published with no restrictions on its distribution. The sources on which the research is based must also be freely exposed to public scrutiny. In short, there can be no “classified” peace research.

The third quality of the research I am en- visioning is that it be applicable. This means that research in itself is not a sufficient peace action, but must be aimed at achieving further peace ac- tion. Michael Wallace offers a good example from his own research of one aspect of the applicability problem:

“Perhaps one of the clearest ex- amples of this divergence between the requirements of scientific explanation and practical utility is to be found in my own research. By measuring the divergences between rank-orderings of nations on several dimensions of status in the international system, I was able to account for a good deal of the variance in the amount of international war begun in the system from 1820 to 1964 (Wallace, 1970; 1971 ). Although “successful” from the scientific point of view, this work has little value as a guide to policy. By ex- plaining conflict at the level of the inter- national system as a whole, the model imparts little information to policy- makers; it does no good to be told that there is an increasing probability of war somewhere in the world. Furthermore, since it is probably well beyond the abili- ty of any single nation or group of nations

to manipulate national status rankings, this explanation of war does not offer any ready means whereby conflict can be controlled. In order to bring these fin- dings into the policy realm it is necessary ( i ) to specify the causal se- quence of intervening variables, one of which may prove amenable to manipula- tion (Wallace, 1972) and (ii) to develop t e s t s of the s t a t u s discrepancy hypothesis as a predictor of national behavior.”I2 (emphasis in original) Another aspect of the applicability problem

is that application may take place at many levels , other than national policy-making circles. There ‘ should be, as I have discussed, much greater in-

teraction between peace researchers and peace activists. This problem may be alleviated to some degree by combining research and action in the same community, but it will not eliminate the need altogether for peace researchers to communicate with outside activist groups.

The final characteristic of the peace research I am advocating relates to applicabili- ty: that is. the research communication should be targeted. Considerably attention should be given to the communication of peace research findings. They certainly should not be limited to the rather narrow circles of the academic “com- munity.” Research communications should be aimed at influencing to specific actions, among others, national government officials, inter- national officials and organizations, the general public of various countries, special interest groups, peace action groups, etc.

If peace research is to be meaningful, which is to say effective, then peace researchers must begin to organize beyond the confines of academia. Peace researchers must take respon- sibility for their own action or lack of action, and while children are daily starving and the world spends $200 billion annually on weapons it is dif- ficult to speak seriously of progress toward peace. What peace research needs, in my opi- nion. are persons wholly committed to peace with research being only one manifestation of this commitment, rather than peace being only one manifestation of an academic research com- mitment.

‘*“The Radical Critique of Peace Research: An Exposition and Interpretation,’’ Peace Research Reviews, Vol. IV., No. 4 (February 19721, p. 30.

- 73 -