Gender-Sensitive Conflict Analysis: A New Training Method for Practitioners

Why Gender-Sensitive Conflict Analysis?

Conflict analysis often ignores gender or creates false binaries. A gendered conflict analysis shows how false binaries privilege male elites and entrench their interests to the detriment of women, gender, and sexual minorities and other excluded groups. It also challenges the binary between public (political) and private (family and community) spheres of power—and arenas of violence—and examines the systems, structures, and institutions which perpetuate gender inequalities. For peacebuilders, integrating concepts of structural and cultural violence (Galtung, 1969, 1990) unlocks new ways to transform conflict. These concepts also open up the space to understand gender inequality as a form of structural and cultural violence that gives rise to gendered exclusion and physical violence.

Current uptake of gender into conflict analysis often appears tokenistic or one-dimensional. A masculinised liberal peace agenda that focuses on economic dimensions of conflict and assumes linear progression from conflict and violence to post-conflict state-building and peacebuilding undermines nuanced analysis of conflict and the social relationships upholding or undermining violence (El-Bushra, 2017). This focus on elite institutions, power brokers, state structures, and armed actors (all of whom are usually men and male-dominated) hinders consideration of the experiences of different groups living in conflict and the cyclical nature of conflict and violence (El-Bushra, 2017).

Integrating gender into conflict analysis can increase the inclusivity and effectiveness of peacebuilding interventions. As the first step in any peacebuilding work, good practice gender-sensitive conflict analysis should support policymakers and practitioners to understand what gender norms and underlying gendered power relations look like in any given context, identify some of the ways in which these norms influence behaviours towards violence or peacebuilding, better anticipate the gendered impacts of conflict, and help generate assumptions or theories of change for engagement. It does this by shedding light on the “drivers of conflict, (potential)” agents and opportunities for peace as well as practices of exclusion and discrimination including within peacebuilding interventions themselves. The entry points and approaches for such analysis vary (Wright & Close, 2019).

Co-Design, Co-Facilitation, and Languages

We simplified the original 5-day CDA model that has been used extensively by peace and development practitioners. This model had been successfully used by one of the authors for over 10 years, but we recognised that additional design work was required to gender-sensitise the process. By simplifying the CDA model, we judged this to be the correct balance between losing some granular complexity and making sure the methodology is easy to grasp and execute within a 2.5-day time frame.

In fact, the first workshop was only 2 days long, and subsequent workshops were extended to allow more time to apply the analysis to policy and programming. The relatively short length of training was primarily constrained by cost factors and the usual challenges of finding time for busy practitioners to undertake further learning. To mitigate these being one-off interventions, facilitators provided a range of take-home guidance and tools and held the analysis workshops at moments in the programming cycle which would allow colleagues and partners to work together to transfer their learning into direct action.

We used the gender and conflict analysis toolkits developed by Conciliation Resources and Saferworld as the basis of the new methodology, and flexibly applied this to the CDA systems analysis. In a series of workshops in early 2017, we co-designed practical exercises, guidance questions, and tools. We tested these exercises internally with colleagues and partners, enabling us to fine-tune key concepts and build in additional information and practical exercises where needed. This participatory design process was critical to avoid misunderstandings or potential backlash and to create an atmosphere of shared learning between facilitators and participants. We also designed a co-facilitation approach to the workshop, drawing on the authors’ different strengths and experiences and allowing for a relatively fast-paced multi-day event. By having two external facilitators, often this gave space for local participants to discuss difficult concepts and issues and to challenge existing gender norms.

Given that not all participants were equally confident using English (the shared working language for the facilitators), the facilitator teams included group facilitators, who were charged with steering discussions and “translating” concepts into vernacular—explaining terms and their relevance to the context within small groups. The small group facilitators were drawn from the local and international staff of partner organisations and used either English or local languages depending on the language skills of participants. In two contexts, we worked with simultaneous interpretation, which worked effectively, allowing non-English speaking participants to more equally participate in plenary discussions and built group trust and coherence. All facilitators met before the training and at the end of every day to review any emerging issues, particularly participant safety, or whether group dynamics were preventing some from participating fully, or particular elements of the methodology were not well understood. This process worked well to identify and mitigate emerging issues as they arose.

Selection of Contexts

The contexts in which we chose to carry out gender-sensitive conflict analysis were selected based on two main criteria. One was consideration of the extent to which this practice-based gender-sensitive analysis might best inform and directly benefit programming and policy work taking place in the context—beyond the workshop. The other was to focus on contexts where we have worked extensively with our peacebuilding partners and where they agreed that it was relevant to learn more about how to identify and transform gendered violence. Since the start of 2017, this methodology has focused on Pakistan, South Sudan, the Philippines, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Nagorno-Karabakh.

Aiming for Genuine Participation

Each workshop involved between 4 and 31 participants. Civil society participants were selected from diverse gender groups, and factors considered include age, ethnicity, ability, geographic location, and occupation. Authors also ensured there were even numbers of women and men. In most contexts where the authors implemented this methodology, the events took place outside of the context itself. In most cases, this was due to the volatility of the context, but in a few instances, it was also to ensure the safety and security of local civil society representatives, given the sensitivities of the issues discussed. As a result of ongoing risks, this article does not include details of the discussions in particular contexts or of the participants.

In four of the workshops, the participants included civil society actors from conflict-affected contexts and international representatives from European Union institutions and other donor governments. No government officials were included from those contexts. This was a deliberate decision, as in our experience, conducting any conflict analysis—gender-sensitive or otherwise—with government officials, civil society, and donor representatives together requires a careful process of trust-building to ensure no negative repercussions occur. Unsurprisingly, some participant feedback highlighted the need for a similar process with government officials and other leaders who may be indifferent or opposed to gender equality and women’s role in peace processes. In other workshops, the participants were all from civil society, which allowed for more open analysis of the roles of all different partners and sectors in the contexts and targeted strategising. However, it also meant losing the opportunity to inform and influence policymakers by conducting the analysis jointly.

Reflection on Key Concepts and Building a Shared Understanding

To promote reflexivity, we start the workshops with a practical exercise, “the gender/power walk,” that asks all participants to examine their personal gender biases and assumptions. This exercise also explores intersectionality, giving participants an opportunity to understand that women and men are not homogenous and that depending on context and other identity factors, different groups of people are vulnerable to violence and exclusion. Participants are each given a fictitious identity from the targeted context, for instance, “a young displaced woman taking care of her siblings” or “older male leader in a remote community.” They stand in a line and are asked to step forward or backward in response to questions that indicate their power or vulnerabilities. A facilitated discussion then explores who is perceived to have power and why that is so in that particular context.

The next session explores what people understand by the terms “conflict,” “peace” (including positive peace and negative peace), and “violence” (including cultural and structural forms of violence; Galtung, 1969, 1990). The facilitators lead a plenary discussion of the gender dimensions of these concepts, highlighting how gender inequality is part of structural discrimination and exclusion. These two exercises allow participants to explore patriarchal systems and entrenched practices as part of their cultural, political, economic, and social systems including polygamy, early and forced marriage, bride price, and rape amongst others. Many participants find these exercises helpful to explore stereotypes and question how they themselves might be involved in these type of practices.

This is followed by an exercise focused on understanding gendered norms, which asks participants to set out the expected roles and behaviours for an “ideal” or “perfect” woman or man in their societies (Tielemans, 2015, pp. 34–35; Wright et al., 2016, pp. 11–14). Depending on the context, the groups can be split according to sex or can be mixed to compare insights and perceptions. The facilitators ask participants to reflect on what happens to these roles and expectations during conflict or transitions to peace. By articulating gender norms, participants are better able to consider what different pressures this creates for different gender groups and how this impacts conflict and peace.

An example of this exercise in Somalia/land showed that according to participants, the “ideal” norms for a man were that he has to be married, have children, and care and provide for his family. He must respect religious and cultural values, be patient and brave, help resolve conflicts, and make decisions for his family and clan. Because of the conflict, men were not seen to be living up to these ideals. Many were no longer perceived as caring, kind, or generous towards their families and were unable to provide for them economically. Many became warmongers, neglecting their family duties and no longer respecting religious and cultural values.

Step 1

Identify Factors Driving Gendered Violence and for Creating Gender-Sensitive Peace

The first step in the gender-sensitive conflict analysis is to brainstorm, in small groups, factors that drive gendered violence and factors that could contribute to gender-sensitive peace. The aim is to identify any issues, behaviours, structures, institutions, events, or symbols that incite or perpetuate violence or contribute to peace. Most peacebuilding practitioners would have previously used conflict analysis methodologies that tease out conflict causes or drivers, so this step is often familiar and easy to undertake. In order to support participants to more deeply reflect on gendered factors, the facilitators provide prompting questions to encourage them to explore those links.

In one example, gender norms were identified as a factor fuelling conflict because of the links between large dowries for women that had to be paid in cattle, with high levels of poverty and exclusion of many men. Young men who could not get enough cattle to pay for dowry remained “boys” in their communities until they were married. One acceptable way for men to obtain dowry is to go on a cattle raid, which exacerbated intercommunal conflict. Women praised those who went on successful raids and shamed those who failed.

Step 2

Select One Key Gendered Driving Factor

Groups examined all the factors driving gendered violence that they had identified and chose one that, if resolved, they saw as able to significantly change violence in the contexts in which they were working. Groups usually noted that some driving factors are not necessarily “gendered” but that gender analysis helps to identify and map the multiple forms of gendered discrimination and violence occurring and to better understand the interconnected nature of these causes and effects. For instance, in one of the workshops, participants identified “unequal distribution of power and resources” as a key driving factor, which included resource capture by older male tribal leaders and men who command armed groups, at the expense of non-violent men, women who did not support armed action, and people from minority tribes. Facilitators ensure there is diversity amongst the key gendered driving factors identified, so each group has a different area of focus for the more detailed analysis to follow.

In one context, a group identified “authoritarian and undemocratic decision-making structures exacerbate political exclusion of women and young people” as their key driving factor. In other contexts, a group singled out “militaristic, patriarchal systems have become part of national identity and reinforce gender norms” or “various groups at all levels of society are excluded from dialogue and decision-making within and between the conflict sides, which limits understanding of the impact of conflict and its resolutions.” These examples highlight the wide variety of gendered factors driving violence in different contexts, and their detail helps participants to further explore each factor.

Step 3

Identify Gendered Causes and Effects and Map One Key Gendered Driving Factor

Each group then takes one key driving factor and, prompted by the facilitator’s questions, identifies the gendered causes and the effects of the factor. Once groups have set out their gendered causes and effects associated with their key driving factors, they are asked to think about the linkages between the two. During this step, it is easier to consider gendered impacts, for instance, if the key driving factor is: “Targeted violence is used to gain and retain political power by older men,” then a gendered effect may be “women and girls are regularly attacked when they go to vote,” or “young unemployed men are easily manipulated into political violence.” The more challenging part of this step is interrogating the gendered causes of the key driving factor, as these may not be obvious, and a deeper understanding of the context will usually be needed. For example, the reason why political contests are violent may be generated by a range of issues concerning the country’s (colonial) history, resources, and ethnic composition. But there may also be cultural issues, “older men (such as the politicians) are not challenged out of respect for their social status,” or structural issues, “there is a strong association between politics, power, and ‘strong man’ tactics or violence.”

Groups are then asked to draw a simple systems map connecting two to three gendered causes and effects to their key driving factor. This part can be difficult for people to engage with, and facilitators use examples and work actively with the small groups. Highlighting only a small number of causes and effects—or grouping similar ones together—can keep the exercise manageable. Ultimately the most important aspect of the mapping step is the process of discussing the linkages, their gendered dimensions, and what this means for overall dynamics that uphold conflict, violence, and gender inequality. Using only a simple systems map for this exercise can mean that participants do not take time to incorporate more complex and interconnecting causes and effects of violence, but the aim is to enable participants to apply this skill in more detail in their peacebuilding practice (see Figure 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

An example of a simple systems map.

Step 4

Identify and Map Key Actors for Peace

Where and how to include actors for conflict and peace is the part of the methodology that has most potential for adaptation. In Step 4, participants are asked to first identify the actors who currently have the power to impact the violence or are in a position to influence the key driving factor and/or the systems map around it. If participants are asked earlier on in the methodology to name the key actors involved in fuelling conflict or working for peace, they generate a long list which can be overwhelming.

Including a gender dimension starts with reflecting on the gender identity of the named actors. This pinpoints who is differently affected by violence but also who holds power, not only because this is important for engaging these actors in change processes but also because the gender dimensions may be structural and hard to pin down. For instance, if one of the actors’ fuelling violence is the police, it could be that the institution itself has developed a culture of male dominance, violent masculinity, and normalisation of abuse against women, children, and gender and sexual minorities. This analysis is challenging and may be hard to generate in a short workshop context.

Participants then consider whether they can influence this actor or whether they can identify an intermediary—another actor they have a relationship with—to influence this key actor. For instance, if the key actor is a government minister, an intermediary may be a local MP or faith leader. Finally, participants are also asked to add themselves on the map—what can they do to influence or transform the key driving factor? In this way, participants are able to identify realistic actions.

In one context, groups identified that poorer, geographically isolated, less educated, younger people were particularly vulnerable to certain types of violence including sexual violence, political exclusion, or economic insecurity. Participants analysed the identity and position of actors that perpetuated authoritarian and undemocratic structures, including corrupt male and female elites, extremist male religious leaders, ultraconservative family members, and diaspora. Some of these actors were also viewed as potential peacebuilders and necessary to engage with.

Another way to discuss actors is to link this analysis to Step 5, that is, once leverage points have been identified, groups can discuss which actors or intermediaries are in the best position to influence each leverage point. This approach is focused and forward-looking. The disadvantage is that the narrow focus may lead to exclusion of non-obvious actors who would not normally be associated with a particular leverage point but may have an important role in shifting conflict dynamics.

Step 5

Locate Leverage Points for Programming and Policy

The purpose of the final step is to identify practical ways to influence peace. In the workshops we conducted, participants generated ideas for what they could do and who they could work with and were also prompted to consider whether/how this could involve other workshop participants (e.g., civil society organisations or donor participants). But given more time, this step could help create a more detailed strategy or programme development activity.

For example, in one workshop, participants mostly from women’s rights organisations discussed how to change the way power and resources are unevenly distributed in their society—seen as a major conflict driver. They developed ideas to target leaders (president, heads of armed factions) through advocacy focused on explicitly involving women and other politically excluded groups across the political spectrum. They wanted to target mostly male mid-level leaders in parliament and leaders of informal tribal power structures through informal family and tribal connections. Participants also wanted to work in communities and with the media to promote changing current gender and other social norms that upheld discriminatory and exclusionary practices in place.