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

The State of Play in U.S.-Taliban Talks and the Afghan Peace Process

The State of Play in U.S.-Taliban Talks and the Afghan Peace Process

Thursday, April 11, 2019

By: Johnny Walsh

The latest round of U.S.-Taliban talks concluded on March 12, with both sides noting progress but conceding that no breakthroughs had been made. After two weeks of discussions in Doha, Qatar, American officials said they were close to reaching a final agreement on a potential U.S. troop withdrawal and a Taliban pledge to no longer allow terrorist attacks from Afghanistan. But how far can these talks go without the Afghan government involved? Is Afghanistan’s post-2001 progress in jeopardy? And what do regional actors think about the talks? USIP’s Johnny Walsh examines the state of play in the Afghan peace process.

Peace Processes

Reaching a Durable Peace in Afghanistan and Iraq: Learning from Investments in Women’s Programming

Reaching a Durable Peace in Afghanistan and Iraq: Learning from Investments in Women’s Programming

Friday, March 29, 2019

By: Danielle Robertson; Steven E. Steiner

USIP recently partnered with New America to convene roundtable discussions with government, civil society, and humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding organizations to learn from the past decade of women’s programming in fragile states such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Based on these discussions, this report provides guidance for improving future programming to not only integrate the needs of women but also recognize the role women play in transforming violent conflict and sustaining a durable peace.

Gender

Can Afghanistan Reap a Peace Dividend if Taliban Talks Succeed?

Can Afghanistan Reap a Peace Dividend if Taliban Talks Succeed?

Thursday, March 28, 2019

By: William Byrd

In recent months there has been a flurry of movement in the Afghan peace process, leading to talk of a “peace dividend” that would boost the country’s economy and incentivize and sustain peace. For example, the November 2018 Geneva international conference on Afghanistan called for donors and development and regional partners to develop a post-settlement economic action plan. But what would a peace dividend look like in war-torn Afghanistan? In the short run, could it help incentivize the insurgency and state actors to agree and adhere to a peace agreement? And in the longer term, could it help sustain peace and lead to a more prosperous and stable Afghanistan?

Economics & Environment; Peace Processes

How Peace Was Made: An Inside Account of Talks between the Afghan Government and Hezb-e Islami

How Peace Was Made: An Inside Account of Talks between the Afghan Government and Hezb-e Islami

Wednesday, March 27, 2019

By: Qaseem Ludin

The September 2016 peace accord between the Afghan government and the Hezb-e Islami militant group has been regarded as a first major step toward restoring Afghanistan to a state of peace. This Special Report provides a firsthand account of the protracted negotiations that led to the agreement—and offers important insights for how similar talks might proceed with the Taliban.

Peace Processes

View All Publications