Month: December 2019

RPP #7: Qualitative Data Sources

Research Question

For my small N research project, I will seek to answer the following question: what explains the difference in reconciliation status in post-conflict Rwanda & Yugoslavia?

Discuss Data Sources Located

The data sources I am utilizing to operationalize my dependent variable of reconciliation status are primarily from the Peace Corps Community Archives from 1991-1999.[1] I utilize these to operationalize my variable through how the Peace Corps interfered in each of the conflict’s development. For the sake of space, I will be utilizing the example entitled “Never Again: Struggling for Humanness in Post-Conflict Rwanda & Guatemala.”[2] The author, Dr. Drew Asson, a former Peace Corps volunteer in post-genocide Rwanda, studies structure and power through a centralized identity, as opposed to a decentralized identity, defined as individual groups claiming certain historical truths as an aspect of their identity, whereas a centralized identity claims a unified history.[3] Through these structures of identity, as studied in this article and others, I plan to operationalize the variable of reconciliation status.

Operationalizing the DV

The dependent variable reflected in my small-n project is reconciliation status,  which segments into centralized or decentralized, impacted by the independent variable of school curricula and those structures of power, particularly those found in history textbooks.[4] Dr. Asson’s article operationalizes the variable of reconciliation narratives using its dependent variable, which is national identity, that plays directly into reconciliation through education. Having a unified national identity signifies an understanding of reconciliation among history, and at least, not too much contention.[5] Thusly, it helps me define my variable within national identity, as reconciliation narratives do involve national, as well as global identities.

Defined in such a way, reconciliation status operationalizes as a measurement of centralized and decentralized identities through the study of education reform in these post-conflict settings.

Highlighting a Case

Rwanda and Yugoslavia are similar cases due to their space in geo-political time.[6] Both struggled through deep ethnic cleansing and genocide from the early 1990’s onward, with different responses from the international community.[7] In Rwanda for example, infiltration from the Peace Corps have nationalized their identity because of the sources I’ve already investigated beyond the data source cited above, such as My Neighbor My Enemy, which emphasizes Rwanda’s “unified” school system, whereas Bosnia would be considered decentralized, as its system of education is incredibly decentralized and tense despite years having past.[8] The difference is dependent on the variable of their education into their national identity, specifically with how their history is being implemented in the classrooms – if it’s still contested or not, if the classrooms are separated, and who determines the books the school reads and buys. Thusly, my primary documents will be ethnographic and genealogical studies of their separate school systems, as well as translated segments of the curriculum.

[1] “Peace Corps Community Archive | AU Digital Research Archive,” accessed December 20, 2019, https://auislandora.wrlc.org/islandora/object/peacecorps%3A1.

[2] “Never Again: Struggling for Humanness in Postconflict Rwanda and Guatemala | AU Digital Research Archive,” accessed December 20, 2019, https://auislandora.wrlc.org/islandora/object/thesesdissertations%3A5659?solr_nav%5Bid%5D=82093b0bc327df927a41&solr_nav%5Bpage%5D=0&solr_nav%5Boffset%5D=4.

[3] Thomas Butler, ed., Memory: History, Culture, and the Mind (Oxford, UK; New York, NY, USA: B. Blackwell, 1989).
“Never Again: Struggling for Humanness in Postconflict Rwanda and Guatemala | AU Digital Research Archive,” accessed December 20, 2019, https://auislandora.wrlc.org/islandora/object/thesesdissertations%3A5659?solr_nav%5Bid%5D=82093b0bc327df927a41&solr_nav%5Bpage%5D=0&solr_nav%5Boffset%5D=4

[4] “Never Again: Struggling for Humanness in Postconflict Rwanda and Guatemala | AU Digital Research Archive.”

[5] Ibid.

[6] David A. Dyker and Ivan Vejvoda, Yugoslavia and After: A Study in Fragmentation, Despair and Rebirth (Routledge, 2014).

[7] Sarah Freedman, My Neighbor, My Enemy: Justice and Community in the Aftermath of Mass Atrocity, ed. Harvey Weinstein, vol. 1, 1 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

[8] Ibid.

Bibliography

Butler, Thomas, ed. Memory: History, Culture, and the Mind. Oxford, UK; New York, NY, USA: B. Blackwell, 1989.

Dyker, David A., and Ivan Vejvoda. Yugoslavia and After: A Study in Fragmentation, Despair and Rebirth. Routledge, 2014.

Freedman, Sarah. My Neighbor, My Enemy: Justice and Community in the Aftermath of Mass Atrocity. Edited by Harvey Weinstein. Vol. 1. 1. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

“Never Again: Struggling for Humanness in Postconflict Rwanda and Guatemala | AU Digital Research Archive.” Accessed December 20, 2019. https://auislandora.wrlc.org/islandora/object/thesesdissertations%3A5659?solr_nav%5Bid%5D=82093b0bc327df927a41&solr_nav%5Bpage%5D=0&solr_nav%5Boffset%5D=4.

“Peace Corps Community Archive | AU Digital Research Archive.” Accessed December 20, 2019. https://auislandora.wrlc.org/islandora/object/peacecorps%3A1.

RPP #9: Final Fall Mentor Meeting

I met with Dr. Robert Adcock on Wednesday, December 5, 2019, for about forty minutes. Our discussion primarily consisted of an analysis of my most recent Research Design, how my Final Literature Review presentation and paper is coming along, and finally, what my next steps are, not only towards next week but also into SISU-306. Overall the discussion was productive and a great insight into how I should change my project.

The first thing we covered was the edits I would have to make going into the final project. The primary edit was the alteration of my object of inquiry, which was initially ethnicity, but after further discussion changed to decentralization, and how official American actors may perpetuate a discourse of both security and insecurity about said object. The alteration was primarily due to the limitations presented by the object of “ethnicity,” in that, one, its nature as an object was a more “fluid” rather than “solid” object, in that it focused more on views, rather than an actual discourse. The further limitation was that I could only understand English, so I would only be able to investigate the issue from an American perspective, rather than a Bosnian, media discourse surrounding the issue.

Aside from making some more minor edits, we further discussed how my project was going. I affirmed with Dr. Adcock that I would be tackling an interpretivist study and that the presentation aspect of our project was helping me assort my schools of thought and prepare for the actual expansion upon them. From there, we discussed how my schools of thought had been adjusted to adapt to my new object. Dr. Adcock added that through this transformation, I could develop a sense of trustworthiness with my reader, as I am willing and open to not only expose myself to new viewpoints on my project but also recognize the changes I had to make as a result. Finally, I assured Dr. Adcock that I would send him both a copy of my Final Literature Review presentation and paper once I finished.

Regarding the next steps towards 306, Dr. Adcock suggested I look further into the divergence of scholars and policymakers within my research, as well as try to look deeper into the non-profit sector regarding official actors, which I intend to do over Christmas break as well. Other things I plan to do over winter break is to read some memoirs, specifically of Richard Holbrooke, regarding the war, to gather more primary evidence on the topic, as that is something, I feel that is needed more for my project.

Overall, though I am nervous, with the confidence that Dr. Adcock has given me over the past few months, I feel that I am prepared to take on this new challenge that is SISU-306.