TY - JOUR
T1 - Interventionary order and its methodologies
T2 - the relationship between peace and intervention
AU - Richmond, Oliver P.
N1 - Funding Information:
The following grants supported this article: ‘The International Peacebuilding Architecture and State and Peace Formation in Post-Revolutionary Societies’ and ‘Legitimacy and International Peacebuilding: Local Political Authority and Mobility’, 2014-5 British Academy and University of Manchester; ‘Legitimacy and International Peacebuilding: Local Political Authority and Mobility’, British Academy and University of Manchester 2017-19; EU Horizon 2020 funded project EUNPACK (grant no. 693337), 2016-19. Thanks to several anonymous reviewers, and also to Sandra Pogodda and Gezim Visoka, for very insightful comments at various stages in the writing of the article. All errors are my responsibility alone.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019, © 2019 Global South Ltd.
PY - 2020/2/1
Y1 - 2020/2/1
N2 - 1Recently there have been calls from policymakers around the world for practically engaged research to produce evidence-based policy for peace, security and development. Policymakers aim to align three types of methodological approaches to knowledge about peace, security and development in international order: methodological liberalism at state and international levels, aligned with ‘methodological everydayism’ in order to constrain methodological nationalism. Policy operates through broad forms of intervention, spanning military, governmental and developmental processes, which scholarship is expected to refine. Critical scholarship is sensitive about the subsequent ‘interventionary order’, often connecting methodological everydayism with global justice frameworks rather than methodological nationalism or liberalism. Sir Philip Mitchell, later colonial governor of Uganda, Fiji, and Kenya, responded to Malinowski’s claims [that the British government needed the support of anthropologists] with great scepticism, emphatically expressing a preference for the ‘practical man’ rather than the scientist.2.
AB - 1Recently there have been calls from policymakers around the world for practically engaged research to produce evidence-based policy for peace, security and development. Policymakers aim to align three types of methodological approaches to knowledge about peace, security and development in international order: methodological liberalism at state and international levels, aligned with ‘methodological everydayism’ in order to constrain methodological nationalism. Policy operates through broad forms of intervention, spanning military, governmental and developmental processes, which scholarship is expected to refine. Critical scholarship is sensitive about the subsequent ‘interventionary order’, often connecting methodological everydayism with global justice frameworks rather than methodological nationalism or liberalism. Sir Philip Mitchell, later colonial governor of Uganda, Fiji, and Kenya, responded to Malinowski’s claims [that the British government needed the support of anthropologists] with great scepticism, emphatically expressing a preference for the ‘practical man’ rather than the scientist.2.
KW - everydayism
KW - intervention
KW - liberalism
KW - nationalism
KW - peacebuilding
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85070302300&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/01436597.2019.1637729
DO - 10.1080/01436597.2019.1637729
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85070302300
SN - 0143-6597
VL - 41
SP - 207
EP - 227
JO - Third World Quarterly
JF - Third World Quarterly
IS - 2
ER -