New research published on mediation effectiveness – one of the largest consultations of its kind

DPIR Research Associate Matt Waldman publishes  new study on mediation effectiveness titled 'Peacemaking in Trouble: Expert Perspectives on Flaws, Deficiencies and Potential in the Field of International Mediation'.  Based on interviews with 86 leading mediation professionals and 10 expert colloquia, it is one of the largest consultations of its kind.

Matt said: 

As I see it, we should apply no less effort, rigour and determination to peacemaking than governments typically devote to fighting wars. That, to my mind, is not a fanciful proposition. It’s what reason demands.”

Lord John Alderdice, Senior Research Fellow at Manchester Harris College, University of Oxford: "This is a really important piece of work and the report merits serious study and reflection."

Michael Keating, Executive Director of the European Institute of Peace: "Insightful and authoritative report with some uncomfortable findings. Recommendations deserve serious attention."

Martin Griffiths, former United Nations Under-Secretary-General: "This report is topical and incisive, and I cannot recall a study of such value to the mediation community. He presents a view of the landscape which is both depressing and compelling."

Matt’s study revolves around a central question: What can be done to increase the effectiveness of international mediation efforts to resolve or prevent armed conflict?

He told us more about his research and what it means: 

Congratulations Matt on this enormous body of work, can you tell us how your research came about?

Wars have proliferated in recent years, and peacemaking efforts have often faltered or failed. I wanted to know whether there was anything that could be done to give those efforts a better chance of succeeding. There are many ways of attempting to answer that question, but I thought one potentially useful approach would be to ask leading mediation practitioners and experts. That’s what I did, and I soon realised that they had a huge amount to say about the issue that was insightful, enlightening and important.  

What motivated you to conduct this research and what were your expectations?

My motivation was simple: having conducted mediation work on several conflicts, including Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Yemen and Ukraine, I have seen for myself the devastating implications of war. The consequences are so much worse, in so many ways, than news reports typically convey. I see it as an obligation for those of us who work in the field of peacemaking to apply our minds rigorously and with a sense of urgency to the effectiveness of our own field – to search for anything we could change that might improve the prospects of preventing war or making progress towards sustainable peace. 

I didn’t have many expectations going into this. I was curious about what many of the world’s leading mediators and mediation experts really thought about their own field – in particular, what’s going wrong and what needs to change. The interviews were conducted on a non-attributable basis, so I thought interviewees might open up – but I never expected them to speak as openly, frankly, and expansively as they did. 

We understand that you spoke with 86 leading mediation professionals and 10 expert colloquia, making it one of the largest consultations of its kind. What was the biggest challenge, and what did you learn from the work?

The biggest challenge was analysing the data: the interviews generated well over half a million words of testimony. Simply put, it took hours and hours of studying, comparing and analysing the transcripts. I learned so much from this work. Among other things, I came to appreciate the remarkable wisdom and insight of practitioners deriving from decades of professional experience. I learned that what they are willing to say without attribution can be quite different from what they say on the record – and that issues of importance, relating to some of the world’s most consequential challenges, can be overlooked or insufficiently acknowledged. 

What do you think is the strongest conclusion and, what surprised you?

Perhaps the biggest takeaway for me, deriving from the testimonies and the colloquia, is that in many ways the field of international mediation isn’t getting the fundamentals right. In other words, peacemaking efforts are failing not only because mediators are tackling difficult conflicts in a challenging international environment, but also due to flaws or deficiencies in the field’s own systems, structures, policies and practices. What surprised me the most was the degree to which experts considered many aspects of their field to be inadequate, defective or unfit for purpose. 

What do you hope your research will lead to? 

I hope the research will catalyse new thinking about the field of international mediation, and that, together with other work in this area, it will help to give rise to a wider realisation of the need for far-reaching change, in both specific ways, and systemically. I’d love to see a process, driven by the field itself, to consider what changes are required, and how they could be brought about. I think that process should be rigorous, honest, open, and inclusive. And if that happens, I think it is entirely possible that it could lead to changes that help to improve the effectiveness of peacemaking efforts around the world.

Why is this important? 

The subject of mediation effectiveness is hugely important because of the bearing it has on people’s lives. Not all wars can be prevented or resolved by mediation. But I believe many can – and that, of course, spares loss and suffering, and avoids massive social, economic and environmental costs. It averts the expenditure of vast sums on war fighting, humanitarian assistance, and in due course peacekeeping and reconstruction. And it enables decision makers to focus on improving the lives of their citizens and, at the highest levels, addressing global challenges. As I see it, we should apply no less effort, rigour and determination to peacemaking than governments typically devote to fighting wars. That, to my mind, is not a fanciful proposition. It’s what reason demands. 

What hopes or ambitions do you have for the future of any work in this area?

There are many associated lines of research I’d like to pursue, including an approach which focuses on the perspectives of people in conflict-affected countries, including the parties themselves. Separately, I’d be glad to work with and support any efforts that seek to explore and address the field’s flaws and deficiencies. As I’ve mentioned, I think the field of mediation needs to jointly build and lead a multidisciplinary process to inspire, support and enable change. The field has evolved and improved over time, including through adaptation and socialisation, but an organised, collective effort could help to expand, strengthen and accelerate the field’s future development. I’m hopeful this line of research could make a contribution to such an effort. The number of armed conflicts around the world today – more than at any point since the end of the Second World War – and the intensification of great power rivalry suggests there is no time to lose. 

Matt’s study is published by the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University.