Across a violent world, governments, U.N. agencies, foundations and peace organizations sponsor dialogue projects every year, working to reduce bloodshed. In national civil wars or local land disputes, trained “facilitators” guide antagonists toward compromise. But do these approaches work, and if so, how?

colombian women mediators
Colombian women mediators taking part in a dialogue.

Amid a storm of violent crises that have displaced more than 60 million people, it’s hard for organizations or governments to dedicate real time and money to learn about what makes these “facilitated dialogue” projects effective. While individual projects often are assessed, there is a dearth of evaluations that look across multiple, disparate projects. So over the past two years, USIP has conducted just such a wider assessment, to study how dialogue projects in general can be improved. The results offer clues that the institute and other peacebuilders can use to improve facilitated dialogue projects—one of the most-used tools in the world’s peacebuilding efforts.

The USIP study, by independent evaluators, examined more than 100 projects that the institute supported, using grants, over the past quarter-century from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Iraq, Libya, Nepal and other countries. A central goal: figure out how such projects can be designed and implemented to multiply their impact.

That multiplied impact comes when the benefits of a dialogue—better understanding and cooperation among conflicting groups—are “transferred” from the relatively few direct participants in the dialogue project to the much larger communities they represent.

Key findings of the study, described in a new USIP Special Report, include:

  • Projects since about 2000 have become more successful than before as they have shifted to focus on grassroots approaches. USIP’s evaluators suggest that this shift, away from working mainly with elites and policymakers, likely reflects (a) an evolution to more intra-state, rather than inter-state, conflicts; and (b) a better understanding in the peacebuilding field about the link between grassroots dynamics and wider conflicts of which they are a part.
  • Projects that more carefully select influential, credible participants tend to have greater success. Logically, influential participants were better able to transfer the understandings from dialogue to their communities.
  • The type and sequencing of activities in a project can better position it for success. One example: Some projects focused exclusively on dialogue. Others built the skills of their participants, training them in leadership or in analyzing and understanding the conflicts they confront. Projects succeeded most often, and transferred their benefits to the wider communities, when these “capacity building” efforts were combined with action or advocacy.
  • To change institutions, dialogue projects have better success when they engage mid-level leaders and win the support of top leaders. The top leaders did not have to participate in the dialogues to sustain the rates of success, but simply had to be aware and supportive of them.

USIP has used insights from the study to improve strategies of recent USIP grant projects. In publishing the full study, with its recommendations, the institute aims to offer its findings to other organizations in the peacebuilding field, ensuring that future dialogue projects can better improve the lives of people most harmed by conflict and violence.

Related Publications

Five Things to Know About the Afghan Peace Talks

Five Things to Know About the Afghan Peace Talks

Monday, September 14, 2020

By: Vikram J. Singh; Scott Smith; Scott Worden; Belquis Ahmadi; Johnny Walsh

The intra-Afghan negotiations that began on Saturday represent a watershed moment in the war: the first direct, official talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government. These historic talks commenced 19 years and one day after al-Qaida's 9/11 terrorist attacks drew the United States into Afghanistan's civil war. Just getting the Afghan government and the Afghan Taliban to the table is an accomplishment. The main reason the talks materialized is the U.S.-Taliban agreement signed in February of this year; that agreement delivered a timetable for the eventual withdrawal of foreign troops, which met the Taliban’s years-long precondition for opening talks with the Afghan government.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes

Afghan Government: ‘Optimistic’ on Opening Talks with Taliban

Afghan Government: ‘Optimistic’ on Opening Talks with Taliban

Friday, August 28, 2020

By: USIP Staff

Afghanistan’s government is optimistic that the delayed peace talks with the Taliban can start soon, acting Foreign Minister Mohammed Haneef Atmar told an online audience. Atmar’s comments are the latest sign that one reason for the five-month delay, disputes over the two sides’ release of prisoners they have been holding, may be nearly resolved. Taliban attacks on government forces have continued, and civilian casualties have remained high, as the two sides have wrestled over conditions for starting the talks as envisioned in a February agreement between the United States and the Taliban.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes

Assessing Afghanistan’s 2019 Presidential Election

Assessing Afghanistan’s 2019 Presidential Election

Wednesday, August 26, 2020

By: Colin Cookman

Afghanistan’s current electoral system structures Afghan political dynamics, shapes election-day outcomes, and influences competition between organized interest groups in Afghanistan. Drawing on a unique set of results data from the September 2019 presidential election and past elections, this report analyzes where and how prospective Afghan voters were able to participate in the 2019 polls, the decision making behind and adjudication of disputes over which votes would be counted as valid, and how the available results compare with political trends evident in prior elections.

Type: Peaceworks

Democracy & Governance

Afghan Peace Talks: Prisoner Release Paves Way for Direct Negotiations

Afghan Peace Talks: Prisoner Release Paves Way for Direct Negotiations

Thursday, August 13, 2020

By: Dipali Mukhopadhyay; Johnny Walsh; Scott Smith

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani on Sunday said that his government would release the last batch of Taliban prisoners, ostensibly removing the final hurdle to direct negotiations with the insurgent group. Intra-Afghan negotiations were originally slated for March 10 as part of the U.S.-Taliban deal signed in late February, but were delayed due to disagreements over prisoner releases. The Afghan government and Taliban had committed to releasing 5,000 and 1,000 prisoners respectively, but the final 400 Taliban prisoners had been accused or convicted of major crimes, including murder. Ghani only made the decision to release those prisoners after he called for a consultative assembly, or loya jirga, to advise on the decision. USIP’s Afghanistan experts explain why Ghani convened the loya jirga, what to expect in the early stages of talks, and what role the United States can play.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes

View All Publications