Monday, October 25, 2010
GS2321: PM Seminar #3
This seminar will be held on Thursday, October 28 at the School of Global Studies.
GS2321: Report from Exercise on Participatory Methods and Action Research
The report will be made on Thursday, October 28 from 10.00-12.00 at the School of Global Studies.
Exercise directions are included in the PowerPoint on "Transdisciplinary Research Methods" and are posted on GUL (https://gul.gu.se/courseId/41279/courseDocsAndFiles.do).
Exercise directions are included in the PowerPoint on "Transdisciplinary Research Methods" and are posted on GUL (https://gul.gu.se/courseId/41279/courseDocsAndFiles.do).
GS2321: Introduction to Exercise in Policy and Project Evaluation
This introduction will be held on Tuesday, October 26 from 13.00-15.00 in SA 326. The following directions are posted on GUL (https://gul.gu.se/courseId/41279/showMessage.do?id=495029&tableSortBynoticeboard=lastChanged):
Exercise IAGG: Evaluation Design
Anna Persson & Martin Sjöstedt
With the point of departure in Sida’s Evaluation Manual “Looking Back, Moving
Forward”, design an evaluation of one of the development policies described in the
document “Government Communication 2004/05:4 – Sweden’s Global Development
Policy”. The proposed evaluation design should include purpose, evaluation criteria (i.e.
effectiveness, impact, relevance, sustainability, or efficiency), specific evaluation
questions, design, methodology, and material. The assignment should be carried out in
the groups described below. Each participant should contribute to the assignment and
each group should be prepared to orally present their evaluation in front of the class on
October 29th (15 minutes per group maximum).
Exercise IAGG: Evaluation Design
Anna Persson & Martin Sjöstedt
With the point of departure in Sida’s Evaluation Manual “Looking Back, Moving
Forward”, design an evaluation of one of the development policies described in the
document “Government Communication 2004/05:4 – Sweden’s Global Development
Policy”. The proposed evaluation design should include purpose, evaluation criteria (i.e.
effectiveness, impact, relevance, sustainability, or efficiency), specific evaluation
questions, design, methodology, and material. The assignment should be carried out in
the groups described below. Each participant should contribute to the assignment and
each group should be prepared to orally present their evaluation in front of the class on
October 29th (15 minutes per group maximum).
Sunday, October 24, 2010
GS2321: Borrowing Methods from Unexpected Sites
Christine Sylvester
- Professor Sylvester is a visiting chair who will be at the School of Global Studies for this academic year.
- She is a social scientist who has combined her research interests in international relations with her love for the arts.
The Social Science/ Humanities Divide
- Social science tends to separate itself from the humanities.
> This can be traced back to the Enlightenment.
> The social sciences only recently integrated quantitative methodology.
- Art was inappropriate because it was seen as the realm of the sublime, the emotional.
- Many people employ "throw-away" expressions in the social sciences such as "the art of diplomacy" or "the art of war."
> These terms do not signal a relationship between art and the social sciences.
> These terms, however, do imply that there are places where social science methodologies cannot go.
- Art is the gap between what the social sciences know and what it doesn't.
- Art/ Museums: International Relations where you least expect it
> Professor Sylvester wrote this book to address the (artificial) divide between the social sciences and the humanities.
> One of her arguments is that the site of the Twin Towers will always by the museum of international relations in the early 21st century.
- Today we will discuss how art can add humanity to your research.
Art and the Social Sciences
- Art gazing is a form of seeing, feeling, and visiting a work of art.
> It is differentiated from reading and listening.
- James Elkins, Painting in Tears
- Who and what is the art? The painting/ play/ sculpture or the audience and their reactions?
Fiction/ Literature and the Social Sciences
- Experiencing reality is often comparable to inhabiting a novel.
- A major problem in social science research is that written words cannot replicate the feelings and textures of lived experience. Literature, however, has the power and ability to do this.
- "People themselves are bits of imaginations, imagined by other people." (Zimbabwe author in exile)
- How can you let your informants speak and get away from you researching you researching them?
- Sylvester overcame this problem by borrowing from post-colonial literature by local authors.
> These works allowed her to give voice to her informants in Zimbabwe.
> Sylvester employs this method in Producing Women in Progress in Zimbabwe.
- Development studies never considers that poor, disempowered people are creating art in their minds.
> Social scientists often simply envision women in developing countries as poor, uneducated, wretched problems.
- Excellent book: Writers Writing about Conflicts and War in Africa
> The introduction is amazing.
> Art interacts with society and society with art.
- Professor Sylvester is a visiting chair who will be at the School of Global Studies for this academic year.
- She is a social scientist who has combined her research interests in international relations with her love for the arts.
The Social Science/ Humanities Divide
- Social science tends to separate itself from the humanities.
> This can be traced back to the Enlightenment.
> The social sciences only recently integrated quantitative methodology.
- Art was inappropriate because it was seen as the realm of the sublime, the emotional.
- Many people employ "throw-away" expressions in the social sciences such as "the art of diplomacy" or "the art of war."
> These terms do not signal a relationship between art and the social sciences.
> These terms, however, do imply that there are places where social science methodologies cannot go.
- Art is the gap between what the social sciences know and what it doesn't.
- Art/ Museums: International Relations where you least expect it
> Professor Sylvester wrote this book to address the (artificial) divide between the social sciences and the humanities.
> One of her arguments is that the site of the Twin Towers will always by the museum of international relations in the early 21st century.
- Today we will discuss how art can add humanity to your research.
Art and the Social Sciences
- Art gazing is a form of seeing, feeling, and visiting a work of art.
> It is differentiated from reading and listening.
- James Elkins, Painting in Tears
- Who and what is the art? The painting/ play/ sculpture or the audience and their reactions?
Fiction/ Literature and the Social Sciences
- Experiencing reality is often comparable to inhabiting a novel.
- A major problem in social science research is that written words cannot replicate the feelings and textures of lived experience. Literature, however, has the power and ability to do this.
- "People themselves are bits of imaginations, imagined by other people." (Zimbabwe author in exile)
- How can you let your informants speak and get away from you researching you researching them?
- Sylvester overcame this problem by borrowing from post-colonial literature by local authors.
> These works allowed her to give voice to her informants in Zimbabwe.
> Sylvester employs this method in Producing Women in Progress in Zimbabwe.
- Development studies never considers that poor, disempowered people are creating art in their minds.
> Social scientists often simply envision women in developing countries as poor, uneducated, wretched problems.
- Excellent book: Writers Writing about Conflicts and War in Africa
> The introduction is amazing.
> Art interacts with society and society with art.
GS2321: Action Research
Stellan Vinthagen
Lecture Outline
- Today we will discuss a slightly unusual and unconventional form of research: action research.
- We will first talk about the basics and then I will tell you about my (Stellan's) own experiences.
Action Research: The Basics
- Action research is not very well established and, as a result, is not as systematized as other research avenues.
- The suggested literature for this lecture can give you some ideas of how to use action research in your master’s thesis.
- Action research is the way that we experience and study the world, or at least that's what Stellan thinks.
- The action research cycle: plan, act, review/ reflect, repeat (This is how children interact with the world around them.)
- It is an exploratory method that combines both action and research.
- This may seem strange since traditional research methods discourage researcher/ subject interaction.
- However, a researcher can find out more through intervention then passive observation.
- Action research combines planned intervention with the resulting responses.
- The researcher necessarily involves his or herself in the process.
- This is the best way to find out how a social system really works.
- However there are problems. For example, how do you differentiate between your intervention(s) and the normal functioning of a social organization?
- Action research allows the researcher to take in information and challenge that information as well as the contradictions.
- Is action research ethical? In other words, is it ethical to intervene and/or challenge a social organization? Is it ethical to check up on the space between what people say they do and what they actually do?
> These are difficult questions to answer. However, you may overcome these ethical dilemmas by trying to help people and/or to support groups in achieving their goals.
- Action research is a method for reaching a deeper understanding of what's really going on.
- By challenging laws/ rules/ customs, you can make social norms visible.
- You don't know how strong a norm is until you challenge it. (Example: Buffet experiment in Norway.)
- Action research opens up a new world, a new approach to research.
- We live with the basic dichotomy of research as external observation--- this is the traditional approach taken from the natural sciences--- versus self-reflective practice--- this has long been regarded as an illegitimate research approach even though self-reflection is inherently social and human.
> I think (act, react, rethink), therefore I am.
- Action research is research through action.
- Action research is also known as social experimentation, collaborative research, and experiential learning.
- Action research is a way of doing research that creates a lot of data.
> It is messy and time consuming and thus is not always appropriate.
- In action research, it is necessary to be clear about what you are studying, the aspects on which you will focus, existing theories and models, and then initiate a creative intervention.
- For Stellan, action research is a way of making a contribution toward democracy, equality, liberty, and social change.
- How can you make action research acceptable?
> It's risky.
> People will inevitably criticize your involvement.
> But you can do things to help yourself out like reflecting on your assumptions and where you can find contradictory evidence which speaks against your assumptions; find several sources of data and methods for data gathering; when you have completed a preliminary analysis, go to the people you are studying and elicit their feedback; continuously engage in planning, action, and reflection.
Stellan's Action Research Experiences
- Non-violent direct action against arms factories and military bases
> Stellan and friends destroyed/ disarmed weapons at various locations.
> At the time, Stellan didn't see this as a form of research but it could have been.
> Later, this activist group formed a research group which made Stellan realize that research and action could be combined.
> Stellan wrote a book as a result of his involvement in this organization.
- Nonviolent resistance in South Africa
> Stellan interviewed members of the nonviolent resistance as well as the armed resistance--- which was an attempt to generate contradictory evidence.
> Stellan did his research as a non-participate.
> However, he had quite a lot of knowledge of the activities undertaken by the activists he interviewed because he had engaged in similar activities.
- World Bank/ IMF protests in Prague
> Stellan was a distant participant.
> He only focused on his research interests.
> He protested but he also took notes and photographs.
> In other words, he tried to observe and participate.
> He used his own experiences as an activist to help him understand what was going on.
> It became clear that one needs to be familiar with the activist culture in order to understand it.
> In other words, it is vital to be familiar with the environment you study.
Lecture Outline
- Today we will discuss a slightly unusual and unconventional form of research: action research.
- We will first talk about the basics and then I will tell you about my (Stellan's) own experiences.
Action Research: The Basics
- Action research is not very well established and, as a result, is not as systematized as other research avenues.
- The suggested literature for this lecture can give you some ideas of how to use action research in your master’s thesis.
- Action research is the way that we experience and study the world, or at least that's what Stellan thinks.
- The action research cycle: plan, act, review/ reflect, repeat (This is how children interact with the world around them.)
- It is an exploratory method that combines both action and research.
- This may seem strange since traditional research methods discourage researcher/ subject interaction.
- However, a researcher can find out more through intervention then passive observation.
- Action research combines planned intervention with the resulting responses.
- The researcher necessarily involves his or herself in the process.
- This is the best way to find out how a social system really works.
- However there are problems. For example, how do you differentiate between your intervention(s) and the normal functioning of a social organization?
- Action research allows the researcher to take in information and challenge that information as well as the contradictions.
- Is action research ethical? In other words, is it ethical to intervene and/or challenge a social organization? Is it ethical to check up on the space between what people say they do and what they actually do?
> These are difficult questions to answer. However, you may overcome these ethical dilemmas by trying to help people and/or to support groups in achieving their goals.
- Action research is a method for reaching a deeper understanding of what's really going on.
- By challenging laws/ rules/ customs, you can make social norms visible.
- You don't know how strong a norm is until you challenge it. (Example: Buffet experiment in Norway.)
- Action research opens up a new world, a new approach to research.
- We live with the basic dichotomy of research as external observation--- this is the traditional approach taken from the natural sciences--- versus self-reflective practice--- this has long been regarded as an illegitimate research approach even though self-reflection is inherently social and human.
> I think (act, react, rethink), therefore I am.
- Action research is research through action.
- Action research is also known as social experimentation, collaborative research, and experiential learning.
- Action research is a way of doing research that creates a lot of data.
> It is messy and time consuming and thus is not always appropriate.
- In action research, it is necessary to be clear about what you are studying, the aspects on which you will focus, existing theories and models, and then initiate a creative intervention.
- For Stellan, action research is a way of making a contribution toward democracy, equality, liberty, and social change.
- How can you make action research acceptable?
> It's risky.
> People will inevitably criticize your involvement.
> But you can do things to help yourself out like reflecting on your assumptions and where you can find contradictory evidence which speaks against your assumptions; find several sources of data and methods for data gathering; when you have completed a preliminary analysis, go to the people you are studying and elicit their feedback; continuously engage in planning, action, and reflection.
Stellan's Action Research Experiences
- Non-violent direct action against arms factories and military bases
> Stellan and friends destroyed/ disarmed weapons at various locations.
> At the time, Stellan didn't see this as a form of research but it could have been.
> Later, this activist group formed a research group which made Stellan realize that research and action could be combined.
> Stellan wrote a book as a result of his involvement in this organization.
- Nonviolent resistance in South Africa
> Stellan interviewed members of the nonviolent resistance as well as the armed resistance--- which was an attempt to generate contradictory evidence.
> Stellan did his research as a non-participate.
> However, he had quite a lot of knowledge of the activities undertaken by the activists he interviewed because he had engaged in similar activities.
- World Bank/ IMF protests in Prague
> Stellan was a distant participant.
> He only focused on his research interests.
> He protested but he also took notes and photographs.
> In other words, he tried to observe and participate.
> He used his own experiences as an activist to help him understand what was going on.
> It became clear that one needs to be familiar with the activist culture in order to understand it.
> In other words, it is vital to be familiar with the environment you study.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
GS2321: PM Seminar 2
The following instructions can be found in the course guide:
The students shall continue to think through their research interests (and passions!) and their proposed research project for their Master's thesis. They should come prepared to the seminar with at least two A4 pages in which they have (re)formulated their research area, research problem and some possible research question(s). Additionally, the students should begin to think through their theoretical framework (as motivation for the research problem and question? As guideline for the operationalization of their research question?) We suggest that the students have begun reading (or rereading) relevant literature to help them with this task. If, for example, a student wants to write about processes of democratization, then literature on theories of democracy and democratization would be appropriate. At the seminar, we will discuss these and begin to play with the chosen research question and theoretical framework in relation to text analysis. What happens to the research question when, for example, the chosen method is discourse analysis? What kinds of texts would be most appropriate? What kinds of questions would one ask of a text? The students shall think about their research interests (and passions!) and formulate... [sic]
***Please note that all groups are meeting at the School of Global Studies from 10.00-12.00 on Thursday, October 21.***
The students shall continue to think through their research interests (and passions!) and their proposed research project for their Master's thesis. They should come prepared to the seminar with at least two A4 pages in which they have (re)formulated their research area, research problem and some possible research question(s). Additionally, the students should begin to think through their theoretical framework (as motivation for the research problem and question? As guideline for the operationalization of their research question?) We suggest that the students have begun reading (or rereading) relevant literature to help them with this task. If, for example, a student wants to write about processes of democratization, then literature on theories of democracy and democratization would be appropriate. At the seminar, we will discuss these and begin to play with the chosen research question and theoretical framework in relation to text analysis. What happens to the research question when, for example, the chosen method is discourse analysis? What kinds of texts would be most appropriate? What kinds of questions would one ask of a text? The students shall think about their research interests (and passions!) and formulate... [sic]
***Please note that all groups are meeting at the School of Global Studies from 10.00-12.00 on Thursday, October 21.***
GS2321: Exercise Report in Discourse Analysis and Argumentation Analysis
The following instructions are posted in the course guide:
Students will divide up into small groups of 3-6 people and conduct first an argumenentation analysis and then a discourse analysis on the same short text (to be posted on the course portal).
Here is the text (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24992):
Good morning. I'm Laura Bush, and I'm delivering this week's radio address to kick off a world-wide effort to focus on the brutality against women and children by the al-Qaida terrorist network and the regime it supports in Afghanistan, the Taliban. That regime is now in retreat across much of the country, and the people of Afghanistan -- especially women -- are rejoicing. Afghan women know, through hard experience, what the rest of the world is discovering: The brutal oppression of women is a central goal of the terrorists. Long before the current war began, the Taliban and its terrorist allies were making the lives of children and women in Afghanistan miserable. Seventy percent of the Afghan people are malnourished. One in every four children won't live past the age of five because health care is not available. Women have been denied access to doctors when they're sick. Life under the Taliban is so hard and repressive, even small displays of joy are outlawed -- children aren't allowed to fly kites; their mothers face beatings for laughing out loud. Women cannot work outside the home, or even leave their homes by themselves.
The severe repression and brutality against women in Afghanistan is not a matter of legitimate religious practice. Muslims around the world have condemned the brutal degradation of women and children by the Taliban regime. The poverty, poor health, and illiteracy that the terrorists and the Taliban have imposed on women in Afghanistan do not conform with the treatment of women in most of the Islamic world, where women make important contributions in their societies. Only the terrorists and the Taliban forbid education to women. Only the terrorists and the Taliban threaten to pull out women's fingernails for wearing nail polish. The plight of women and children in Afghanistan is a matter of deliberate human cruelty, carried out by those who seek to intimidate and control.
Civilized people throughout the world are speaking out in horror -- not only because our hearts break for the women and children in Afghanistan, but also because in Afghanistan we see the world the terrorists would like to impose on the rest of us.
All of us have an obligation to speak out. We may come from different backgrounds and faiths -- but parents the world over love our children. We respect our mothers, our sisters and daughters. Fighting brutality against women and children is not the expression of a specific culture; it is the acceptance of our common humanity -- a commitment shared by people of good will on every continent. Because of our recent military gains in much of Afghanistan, women are no longer imprisoned in their homes. They can listen to music and teach their daughters without fear of punishment. Yet the terrorists who helped rule that country now plot and plan in many countries. And they must be stopped. The fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women.
In America, next week brings Thanksgiving. After the events of the last few months, we'll be holding our families even closer. And we will be especially thankful for all the blessings of American life. I hope Americans will join our family in working to insure that dignity and opportunity will be secured for all the women and children of Afghanistan.
Have a wonderful holiday, and thank you for listening.
Students will divide up into small groups of 3-6 people and conduct first an argumenentation analysis and then a discourse analysis on the same short text (to be posted on the course portal).
Here is the text (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24992):
Good morning. I'm Laura Bush, and I'm delivering this week's radio address to kick off a world-wide effort to focus on the brutality against women and children by the al-Qaida terrorist network and the regime it supports in Afghanistan, the Taliban. That regime is now in retreat across much of the country, and the people of Afghanistan -- especially women -- are rejoicing. Afghan women know, through hard experience, what the rest of the world is discovering: The brutal oppression of women is a central goal of the terrorists. Long before the current war began, the Taliban and its terrorist allies were making the lives of children and women in Afghanistan miserable. Seventy percent of the Afghan people are malnourished. One in every four children won't live past the age of five because health care is not available. Women have been denied access to doctors when they're sick. Life under the Taliban is so hard and repressive, even small displays of joy are outlawed -- children aren't allowed to fly kites; their mothers face beatings for laughing out loud. Women cannot work outside the home, or even leave their homes by themselves.
The severe repression and brutality against women in Afghanistan is not a matter of legitimate religious practice. Muslims around the world have condemned the brutal degradation of women and children by the Taliban regime. The poverty, poor health, and illiteracy that the terrorists and the Taliban have imposed on women in Afghanistan do not conform with the treatment of women in most of the Islamic world, where women make important contributions in their societies. Only the terrorists and the Taliban forbid education to women. Only the terrorists and the Taliban threaten to pull out women's fingernails for wearing nail polish. The plight of women and children in Afghanistan is a matter of deliberate human cruelty, carried out by those who seek to intimidate and control.
Civilized people throughout the world are speaking out in horror -- not only because our hearts break for the women and children in Afghanistan, but also because in Afghanistan we see the world the terrorists would like to impose on the rest of us.
All of us have an obligation to speak out. We may come from different backgrounds and faiths -- but parents the world over love our children. We respect our mothers, our sisters and daughters. Fighting brutality against women and children is not the expression of a specific culture; it is the acceptance of our common humanity -- a commitment shared by people of good will on every continent. Because of our recent military gains in much of Afghanistan, women are no longer imprisoned in their homes. They can listen to music and teach their daughters without fear of punishment. Yet the terrorists who helped rule that country now plot and plan in many countries. And they must be stopped. The fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women.
In America, next week brings Thanksgiving. After the events of the last few months, we'll be holding our families even closer. And we will be especially thankful for all the blessings of American life. I hope Americans will join our family in working to insure that dignity and opportunity will be secured for all the women and children of Afghanistan.
Have a wonderful holiday, and thank you for listening.
GS2321: Transdisciplinary and Participatory Methods
Per Knutsson
Please see PowerPoint posted on GUL.
Please see PowerPoint posted on GUL.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
GS2321: Discourse Analysis (take two)
Maria Stern
Introductory Note
- The following is a basic, general overview of approaches and tools used in critical discourse analysis.
- It is important to remember that there is no single way to do discourse analysis.
Theoretical Underpinnings
- Discourse analysis usually coincides with a constructivist way of thinking.
- That is, those using this method typically believe that the relationship between reality and language is socially constructed or that language produces reality and/ or provides access to reality.
- To do discourse analysis is to question the production of meaning/ 'reality.'
- There are competing versions of the world.
- Discourses are considered systems of representation in which meaning is constructed through difference among other things.
- How you delimit your study is dependent upon what you want to find out. That is, which 'discourse' are you looking for?
Helpful Guiding Questions
- How is it that this particular story appears instead of another?
- What is taken for granted?
- Why does it make sense?
- What holds the story together?
- How can you (as a researcher) make the familiar strange?
- What are the underlying assumptions?
- What is left out? / What are the ghosts?
Important Theorists
- Fairclough offers a systematic way of coding and is commonly referred to in the literature. However, discourse analysis doesn't have to be so technical.
- Foucalt: genealogy
- Derrida: deconstruction
- Laclau and Mouffe
An Example of Discourse Analysis: The History of Sexuality by Foucalt
- In this text, Foucalt uses genealogy to question the seemingly 'natural' assumptions of the social world.
- In doing so, Foucalt identifies contingencies or things that could have gone differently / choices that were made.
- He also analyzes specific historical relations of power.
- Foucalt also asks how the discourse constitutes it's objects. As well as what are the modes of objectification, what are the mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion; and what are the discursive strategies?
Conclusions / General Observations about Discourses
- Regimes of power overlap.
- Discourses strive for cohesion. In other words, people want their stories to make sense.
- Most good stories 'cover up' all of the discursive strategies in play.
Practical Steps in Discourse Analysis
1. Choose your text(s) and delimit them.
> This is related to your research question and your theoretical underpinnings.
2. Map the representations.
> What are the dominant representations?
> What are the limits of the representations?
> What representations are repeated?
> What picture is being drawn?
> What are the lines of distinction?
3. Analyze the construction of the discourse.
> What is uniting/ differentiating?
> What are the dominant, normal understandings?
> What are the underlying assumptions?
> What signs are so normalized that it is difficult to recognize them?
> How are signs given meaning in relation to other signs?
> How are subject positions allotted/ defined/ delineated?
> What is excluded/ silenced?
> How are myths employed?
> What are the nodal points or main themes that organize the discourse?
> What are the master signifiers?
> What happens when and if you take a nodal point out and replace it?
Deconstruction, Derrida
- Deridda suggests that one should first conduct a double reading.
> Opposition relies on illusion.
> Seeks to reveal the process of construction.
> This has to do with hierarchies in language which are written through violence.
- A double reading consists of brings out the assumptions of the main story and reinstating the binary with a reversal.
> This helps determine the condition of possibility. In other words, when you speak about a man, the conditions of possibility are everything else.
> The 'other' is defined as not 'us' and vice versa.
- Derrida also suggests that one look for the points of condensation or where arguments and values are brought together.
> One should also look for 'ghosts' or silences.
How can you validate a discourse analysis?
- By asking if it makes sense.
- Above all, a discourse analysis must be systematic and explicit.
Introductory Note
- The following is a basic, general overview of approaches and tools used in critical discourse analysis.
- It is important to remember that there is no single way to do discourse analysis.
Theoretical Underpinnings
- Discourse analysis usually coincides with a constructivist way of thinking.
- That is, those using this method typically believe that the relationship between reality and language is socially constructed or that language produces reality and/ or provides access to reality.
- To do discourse analysis is to question the production of meaning/ 'reality.'
- There are competing versions of the world.
- Discourses are considered systems of representation in which meaning is constructed through difference among other things.
- How you delimit your study is dependent upon what you want to find out. That is, which 'discourse' are you looking for?
Helpful Guiding Questions
- How is it that this particular story appears instead of another?
- What is taken for granted?
- Why does it make sense?
- What holds the story together?
- How can you (as a researcher) make the familiar strange?
- What are the underlying assumptions?
- What is left out? / What are the ghosts?
Important Theorists
- Fairclough offers a systematic way of coding and is commonly referred to in the literature. However, discourse analysis doesn't have to be so technical.
- Foucalt: genealogy
- Derrida: deconstruction
- Laclau and Mouffe
An Example of Discourse Analysis: The History of Sexuality by Foucalt
- In this text, Foucalt uses genealogy to question the seemingly 'natural' assumptions of the social world.
- In doing so, Foucalt identifies contingencies or things that could have gone differently / choices that were made.
- He also analyzes specific historical relations of power.
- Foucalt also asks how the discourse constitutes it's objects. As well as what are the modes of objectification, what are the mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion; and what are the discursive strategies?
Conclusions / General Observations about Discourses
- Regimes of power overlap.
- Discourses strive for cohesion. In other words, people want their stories to make sense.
- Most good stories 'cover up' all of the discursive strategies in play.
Practical Steps in Discourse Analysis
1. Choose your text(s) and delimit them.
> This is related to your research question and your theoretical underpinnings.
2. Map the representations.
> What are the dominant representations?
> What are the limits of the representations?
> What representations are repeated?
> What picture is being drawn?
> What are the lines of distinction?
3. Analyze the construction of the discourse.
> What is uniting/ differentiating?
> What are the dominant, normal understandings?
> What are the underlying assumptions?
> What signs are so normalized that it is difficult to recognize them?
> How are signs given meaning in relation to other signs?
> How are subject positions allotted/ defined/ delineated?
> What is excluded/ silenced?
> How are myths employed?
> What are the nodal points or main themes that organize the discourse?
> What are the master signifiers?
> What happens when and if you take a nodal point out and replace it?
Deconstruction, Derrida
- Deridda suggests that one should first conduct a double reading.
> Opposition relies on illusion.
> Seeks to reveal the process of construction.
> This has to do with hierarchies in language which are written through violence.
- A double reading consists of brings out the assumptions of the main story and reinstating the binary with a reversal.
> This helps determine the condition of possibility. In other words, when you speak about a man, the conditions of possibility are everything else.
> The 'other' is defined as not 'us' and vice versa.
- Derrida also suggests that one look for the points of condensation or where arguments and values are brought together.
> One should also look for 'ghosts' or silences.
How can you validate a discourse analysis?
- By asking if it makes sense.
- Above all, a discourse analysis must be systematic and explicit.
GS2321: Report for Excerise in Participant Observation and Interviews
The following directions are posted on GUL (https://gul.gu.se/public/courseId/41279/lang-sv/publicShowMessage.do?id=476530):
Part 1. What is meant by ”insider’s perspective”?
Each student should read and reflect on four texts from the course literature: Clifford,
Geertz, Abu-Lughod and Wikan. Be prepared to discuss the following issues:
1. Give each one in the group the opportunity to argue, using the texts you have
read, for or against the idea that ethnographic fieldwork can capture the insiders
perspective.
2. Have a discussion about how you would define “insiders’ perspective”. (terms
and concepts that might be debated: partial truths, understanding – translating,
resonance, individual experience – collective representations, ethnographic
present, Western conceptions, social position – identity, halfie, meaning, practice,
norms)
3. Can you find any common traits in each different author’s arguments?
4. What seems to be the main issue they are arguing against (that is not necessarily
explicit in all articles)?
Part 2. Constructing an interview guide
Each student should prepare an interview guide for a semi-structured interview that is
supposed to last for about 45 minutes. Take as a point of departure that you are going to
interview one of your fellow students about their thoughts (and experiences, worries,
expectations, preparations etc) on climate change due to global warming. Imagine that the
interview is part of a research project that aims to grasp the ways young people
understand and try to influence their future in an uncertain world.
Part 1. What is meant by ”insider’s perspective”?
Each student should read and reflect on four texts from the course literature: Clifford,
Geertz, Abu-Lughod and Wikan. Be prepared to discuss the following issues:
1. Give each one in the group the opportunity to argue, using the texts you have
read, for or against the idea that ethnographic fieldwork can capture the insiders
perspective.
2. Have a discussion about how you would define “insiders’ perspective”. (terms
and concepts that might be debated: partial truths, understanding – translating,
resonance, individual experience – collective representations, ethnographic
present, Western conceptions, social position – identity, halfie, meaning, practice,
norms)
3. Can you find any common traits in each different author’s arguments?
4. What seems to be the main issue they are arguing against (that is not necessarily
explicit in all articles)?
Part 2. Constructing an interview guide
Each student should prepare an interview guide for a semi-structured interview that is
supposed to last for about 45 minutes. Take as a point of departure that you are going to
interview one of your fellow students about their thoughts (and experiences, worries,
expectations, preparations etc) on climate change due to global warming. Imagine that the
interview is part of a research project that aims to grasp the ways young people
understand and try to influence their future in an uncertain world.
GS2321: PM Seminar #1
The following instructions are posted on GUL (https://gul.gu.se/public/courseId/41279/lang-sv/publicShowMessage.do?id=480580):
Purpose of the PM seminars:
During the three PM seminars, students discuss methodological and design problems and questions in relation to their individual research design task. Each student shall work continuously on their PM during the course. The idea behind these seminars is for the students to have the opportunity to think and work through their research design in relation to the course content on methodology and methods throughout the course in preparation for the writing of their master thesis.
Individual preparation for the seminar:
The students shall think about their research interests (and passions!) and formulate the basic idea of their proposed research project for their Master's thesis. They should come prepared to the seminar with at least an A4 page in which they formulate their research area (preferably based on a limited, preliminary literature review), research problem (preferably based on a limited, preliminary literature review) and some possible research question(s) (feel free to formulate more than one!).
During the seminar, each student should be prepared to give a short (maximum 5 minutes) presentation of her or his proposed research area, research problem and possible research questions, and to comment/give feedback on the presentations made by the other students in the seminar group (see GUL for information on seminar groups).
Furthermore, during the seminar each student is expected to be able to discuss how her or his research problem and/or research questions could be approached through participant observation, ethnographic analysis, in-depth interviews and/or semi-structured interviews.
Organization of the seminar:
There will be 8 seminar groups of which 1, 2, 4 and 6 meet 08 – 10 and group 3, 5, 7 and 8 meet 10 – 12 (please refer to GUL to see which seminar group you should participate in and which group room you should be in). The discussions in each seminar group will be lead by a seminar leader (a PhD-student or a lecturer).
GOOD LUCK!
Purpose of the PM seminars:
During the three PM seminars, students discuss methodological and design problems and questions in relation to their individual research design task. Each student shall work continuously on their PM during the course. The idea behind these seminars is for the students to have the opportunity to think and work through their research design in relation to the course content on methodology and methods throughout the course in preparation for the writing of their master thesis.
Individual preparation for the seminar:
The students shall think about their research interests (and passions!) and formulate the basic idea of their proposed research project for their Master's thesis. They should come prepared to the seminar with at least an A4 page in which they formulate their research area (preferably based on a limited, preliminary literature review), research problem (preferably based on a limited, preliminary literature review) and some possible research question(s) (feel free to formulate more than one!).
During the seminar, each student should be prepared to give a short (maximum 5 minutes) presentation of her or his proposed research area, research problem and possible research questions, and to comment/give feedback on the presentations made by the other students in the seminar group (see GUL for information on seminar groups).
Furthermore, during the seminar each student is expected to be able to discuss how her or his research problem and/or research questions could be approached through participant observation, ethnographic analysis, in-depth interviews and/or semi-structured interviews.
Organization of the seminar:
There will be 8 seminar groups of which 1, 2, 4 and 6 meet 08 – 10 and group 3, 5, 7 and 8 meet 10 – 12 (please refer to GUL to see which seminar group you should participate in and which group room you should be in). The discussions in each seminar group will be lead by a seminar leader (a PhD-student or a lecturer).
GOOD LUCK!
GS2321: In depth/ Unstructured Interviews
Nina Gren, School of Global Studies
Introductory Film
"Growing Pains," a film about an Angolan migrant in Portugal
Literature
- Bryman (2008), Chapter 18
- Creswell, pg. 87-92
Traits of an Effective Interviewer
- Social
- Friendly
- Flexible
- Trustworthy
An unstructured interview in practice: An informal interview in a Palestinian refugee camp
- Nina interviewed a former prisoner about his prison experiences and how he felt after he was set free.
- The interviewee was male, a father, and in his mid- 50s.
- The interviewee had lived abroad and spoke English well. He also had a university degree.
- The interviewee was held in an Israeli prison for fifteen years.
- He was also involved in political resistance and had experience being interviewed by scholars and journalists.
- Advantages of this method in this case: Nina collected a beautiful story in which the informant expressed his ideas and experiences in a very academic way.
- Disadvantages: He was more a less a professional informant delivering a polished narrative.
- In retrospect, Nina wondered if she was a bit too awestruck/ impressed with this particular informant.
What should you do with your field material?
- Transcribe
- Search for themes/ key words
- Index subjects
- Write a preliminary summary of your findings.
Eastmond on Life Stories
- Narratives are subjective/ inter-subjective truth.
> Life as lived.
> Life as experienced.
> Life as told/ narrated as a story.
> Life as text.
> Life as understood by the reader.
- Narratives need context!
- Interviewees often reconstitute themselves in a certain way, for example as a moral person or hero.
Transgressions of Ethical Principles
- Try not to harm the participants.
- Make sure to obtain informed consent. This can be done through verbal or written agreement. This should be viewed as an ongoing negotiation which is revisited throughout the research process.
- Protect your informants privacy by, for example, changing their names in your transcripts.
- Protect your data.
- Anticipate problems such as what you will do when and if people tell you secrets or sensitive information.
Important Questions
- Can a researcher ever be ethical?
- Should a researcher ever hide what he or she knows?
- Can research be used in unintended and/or harmful ways?
Introductory Film
"Growing Pains," a film about an Angolan migrant in Portugal
Literature
- Bryman (2008), Chapter 18
- Creswell, pg. 87-92
Traits of an Effective Interviewer
- Social
- Friendly
- Flexible
- Trustworthy
An unstructured interview in practice: An informal interview in a Palestinian refugee camp
- Nina interviewed a former prisoner about his prison experiences and how he felt after he was set free.
- The interviewee was male, a father, and in his mid- 50s.
- The interviewee had lived abroad and spoke English well. He also had a university degree.
- The interviewee was held in an Israeli prison for fifteen years.
- He was also involved in political resistance and had experience being interviewed by scholars and journalists.
- Advantages of this method in this case: Nina collected a beautiful story in which the informant expressed his ideas and experiences in a very academic way.
- Disadvantages: He was more a less a professional informant delivering a polished narrative.
- In retrospect, Nina wondered if she was a bit too awestruck/ impressed with this particular informant.
What should you do with your field material?
- Transcribe
- Search for themes/ key words
- Index subjects
- Write a preliminary summary of your findings.
Eastmond on Life Stories
- Narratives are subjective/ inter-subjective truth.
> Life as lived.
> Life as experienced.
> Life as told/ narrated as a story.
> Life as text.
> Life as understood by the reader.
- Narratives need context!
- Interviewees often reconstitute themselves in a certain way, for example as a moral person or hero.
Transgressions of Ethical Principles
- Try not to harm the participants.
- Make sure to obtain informed consent. This can be done through verbal or written agreement. This should be viewed as an ongoing negotiation which is revisited throughout the research process.
- Protect your informants privacy by, for example, changing their names in your transcripts.
- Protect your data.
- Anticipate problems such as what you will do when and if people tell you secrets or sensitive information.
Important Questions
- Can a researcher ever be ethical?
- Should a researcher ever hide what he or she knows?
- Can research be used in unintended and/or harmful ways?
GS2321: Semi-Structured Interviews
Nina Gren, School of Global Studies
Literature
- Bryman (2008), Chapters 18 and 19
- Wikan (1992)
Important Points about Qualitative Interviewing
- This method can yield rich, detailed answers to important and interesting questions.
- It both demands and provides flexibility.
- The researcher is not in full control over the interview or the interview answers.
- Power relations exist in an interview.
- It is advisable to allow the researcher/ interviewee to go off an tangents because this provides opportunities for the discussion of context, values, and what the interviewee sees as important.
- The same person can be interviewed multiple times.
*** The interviewee and his or her knowledge should always be in focus.***
- The interviewee should speak most of the time.
> A researcher must be aware of the above at all times.
> The interviewee should produce the knowledge.
Semi-Structure vs. Unstructured Interviews
- A researcher may conduct semi-structured interviews because time is limited or because he or she must work with and/ or rely on an interpreter.
- It is easier to compare information generated/ constructed in semi-structured interviews than unstructured interviews in the context of multi-case studies.
- The researcher may opt for semi-structured interviews in order to maintain a clear focus or because more than one person will carry out fieldwork in the same study.
Semi-Structured Interviews in Practice: Nina's Fieldwork in Palestine
- Initially, Nina conducted semi-structured interviews according to themes.
- Later, she conducted more informal, unstructured interviews.
- Nina's second set of semi-structured interviews were more focused and pertained to the Occupation.
> This raised the issue of sensitivity. More specifically, Nina had to think about the sensitive nature of this topic and the fact that some of her informants may be related to martyrs.
- Nina's third set of semi-structured interviews were conducted to fill gaps in her previous research. As a result, she primarily interviewed men about gender-related issues.
- Finally, Nina conducted focus-group interviews on provocative, political issues.
> In doing so, Nina had to think about how to form groups to example according to age, gender, vocation, etc.
> Nina found that people were more talkative in focus groups. She believes this was because the situation was less intimidating than one-one-one interviews.
Interview Checklist
- Kind of information
>What do you want to know? Is this information accessible?
- Kind of interviews
> Time? Level of control? Resources?
- Interviewees
> Who? How will you find them?
- Relationships
> What kinds of relationships can you create or already have with the interviewees?
- Adjustments
> How can you improve your relationship / inter-personal skills?
- Setting
> Where and how will you hold the interviews?
- Equipment
> What kinds of equipment will you use? What are the advantages and disadvantages of using this equipment?
- Themes
> What types/ kinds of information do you want to gather?
> What are your main ideas/ topics of inquiry?
- Do No Harm
> What precautions can you take to safeguard yourself and your informants?
Preparing for the Interview
- Know your subject.
- Prepare your questions/ interview guide/ themes.
- Learn your questions by heart.
- Test your interview guide on someone else and refine your questions as needed.
- Contact the people you would like to interview.
Before the Interview
- Explain yourself and the purpose of your research clearly and succinctly.
- Tell the interviewee how he or she was selected.
- Ask the interviewee if you can take notes and/ or record the interview.
- Explain how the information generated during the interview will be used and how the data will be handled and stored.
- Explain why the interviewee and his or her knowledge is important.
Interview Guides
- An interview guide typically consists of a list of topics and questions as well as alternate or follow-up questions.
- An interview guide can result from a mind map of the key themes that the researcher would like to explore.
- It is important that the interview guide contains clear, comprehensible language.
- It is important to be aware of leading questions which are sometimes okay.
- Typically, open-ended questions are best.
- Remember to collect biographical data so that information generated during the interview can be contextualized.
Example Interview Guide
- Please see PowerPoint presentation posted on GUL.
- The example interview guide contained eight topics and approximately 3 questions for each topic.
Kinds of Questions, Bryman p. 445-446
- introducing
- follow-up
- probing
- indirect
- structuring
- specifying
- direct
- leading
- silence
- interpreting--- These questions are typically asked at the end of the interview.
Important
- Always take notes! Take notes even if you are recording the interview, your recording device may not work properly.
After the Interview
- Transcribe your interview notes as soon as possible.
- Make notes about the interview setting and your impressions as well as how the interviewee acted.
- Take your time! (Be relaxed and focused. It takes a lot of time to transcribe.)
Sampling
- Be honest/ transparent.
- Consider how many people you will interview and how those people were selected.
- Will you use key informants, snowballing, or random sampling?
Focus Group Interviews
- These interviews must be recorded.
- A focus group typically consists of three or four participants with the researcher acting as the moderator.
- It is important to think about when to intervene when a participant monopolizes the conversation.
- Cases/ provocations/ stimuli are always ways to get people talking.
- It is important to keep in mind that groups often negotiate and create consensus and this can yield misleading results.
- Problems associated with focus group interviews can be addressed through individual follow-up interviews.
Literature
- Bryman (2008), Chapters 18 and 19
- Wikan (1992)
Important Points about Qualitative Interviewing
- This method can yield rich, detailed answers to important and interesting questions.
- It both demands and provides flexibility.
- The researcher is not in full control over the interview or the interview answers.
- Power relations exist in an interview.
- It is advisable to allow the researcher/ interviewee to go off an tangents because this provides opportunities for the discussion of context, values, and what the interviewee sees as important.
- The same person can be interviewed multiple times.
*** The interviewee and his or her knowledge should always be in focus.***
- The interviewee should speak most of the time.
> A researcher must be aware of the above at all times.
> The interviewee should produce the knowledge.
Semi-Structure vs. Unstructured Interviews
- A researcher may conduct semi-structured interviews because time is limited or because he or she must work with and/ or rely on an interpreter.
- It is easier to compare information generated/ constructed in semi-structured interviews than unstructured interviews in the context of multi-case studies.
- The researcher may opt for semi-structured interviews in order to maintain a clear focus or because more than one person will carry out fieldwork in the same study.
Semi-Structured Interviews in Practice: Nina's Fieldwork in Palestine
- Initially, Nina conducted semi-structured interviews according to themes.
- Later, she conducted more informal, unstructured interviews.
- Nina's second set of semi-structured interviews were more focused and pertained to the Occupation.
> This raised the issue of sensitivity. More specifically, Nina had to think about the sensitive nature of this topic and the fact that some of her informants may be related to martyrs.
- Nina's third set of semi-structured interviews were conducted to fill gaps in her previous research. As a result, she primarily interviewed men about gender-related issues.
- Finally, Nina conducted focus-group interviews on provocative, political issues.
> In doing so, Nina had to think about how to form groups to example according to age, gender, vocation, etc.
> Nina found that people were more talkative in focus groups. She believes this was because the situation was less intimidating than one-one-one interviews.
Interview Checklist
- Kind of information
>What do you want to know? Is this information accessible?
- Kind of interviews
> Time? Level of control? Resources?
- Interviewees
> Who? How will you find them?
- Relationships
> What kinds of relationships can you create or already have with the interviewees?
- Adjustments
> How can you improve your relationship / inter-personal skills?
- Setting
> Where and how will you hold the interviews?
- Equipment
> What kinds of equipment will you use? What are the advantages and disadvantages of using this equipment?
- Themes
> What types/ kinds of information do you want to gather?
> What are your main ideas/ topics of inquiry?
- Do No Harm
> What precautions can you take to safeguard yourself and your informants?
Preparing for the Interview
- Know your subject.
- Prepare your questions/ interview guide/ themes.
- Learn your questions by heart.
- Test your interview guide on someone else and refine your questions as needed.
- Contact the people you would like to interview.
Before the Interview
- Explain yourself and the purpose of your research clearly and succinctly.
- Tell the interviewee how he or she was selected.
- Ask the interviewee if you can take notes and/ or record the interview.
- Explain how the information generated during the interview will be used and how the data will be handled and stored.
- Explain why the interviewee and his or her knowledge is important.
Interview Guides
- An interview guide typically consists of a list of topics and questions as well as alternate or follow-up questions.
- An interview guide can result from a mind map of the key themes that the researcher would like to explore.
- It is important that the interview guide contains clear, comprehensible language.
- It is important to be aware of leading questions which are sometimes okay.
- Typically, open-ended questions are best.
- Remember to collect biographical data so that information generated during the interview can be contextualized.
Example Interview Guide
- Please see PowerPoint presentation posted on GUL.
- The example interview guide contained eight topics and approximately 3 questions for each topic.
Kinds of Questions, Bryman p. 445-446
- introducing
- follow-up
- probing
- indirect
- structuring
- specifying
- direct
- leading
- silence
- interpreting--- These questions are typically asked at the end of the interview.
Important
- Always take notes! Take notes even if you are recording the interview, your recording device may not work properly.
After the Interview
- Transcribe your interview notes as soon as possible.
- Make notes about the interview setting and your impressions as well as how the interviewee acted.
- Take your time! (Be relaxed and focused. It takes a lot of time to transcribe.)
Sampling
- Be honest/ transparent.
- Consider how many people you will interview and how those people were selected.
- Will you use key informants, snowballing, or random sampling?
Focus Group Interviews
- These interviews must be recorded.
- A focus group typically consists of three or four participants with the researcher acting as the moderator.
- It is important to think about when to intervene when a participant monopolizes the conversation.
- Cases/ provocations/ stimuli are always ways to get people talking.
- It is important to keep in mind that groups often negotiate and create consensus and this can yield misleading results.
- Problems associated with focus group interviews can be addressed through individual follow-up interviews.
Thesis Writing in Global Studies
During this lecture, Jorgen introduced the thesis writing course and answered related questions. In addition, several professors associated with the School of Global Studies presented on-going research projects and made suggestions about ways in which a masters student could become involved by writing a related thesis.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
GS2321: Seminar 3
This seminar will be held on Tuesday, September 28.
Directions posted on GUL (https://gul.gu.se/courseId/41279/showMessage.do?id=456149&tableSortBynoticeboard=lastChanged):
"You are individually requested to prepare, in writing, a proposed research design and a discussion of pros and cons of different research designs, in relation to the given research task (as described in the instructions). As with the previous seminars, you are only requested to hand in the written assignment if you fail to attend the seminar or fail to actively participate in the seminar (e.g. attending the seminar without having prepared for it). During the seminar you will discuss your proposals and their pros and cons."
Directions posted on GUL (https://gul.gu.se/courseId/41279/showMessage.do?id=456149&tableSortBynoticeboard=lastChanged):
"You are individually requested to prepare, in writing, a proposed research design and a discussion of pros and cons of different research designs, in relation to the given research task (as described in the instructions). As with the previous seminars, you are only requested to hand in the written assignment if you fail to attend the seminar or fail to actively participate in the seminar (e.g. attending the seminar without having prepared for it). During the seminar you will discuss your proposals and their pros and cons."
GS2321: Quantitative Analysis--- An example using secondary data
Marcia Grimes
This lecture was presented via PowerPoint and will hopefully be posted on GUL. The lecture explored the methodology of a paper recently published by the presentor:
Grimes, M. and Lena Wängnerud (2010). Curbing Corruption through Social Welfare Reform? The Effects of Mexico’s Conditional Cash Transfer Program on Good Government. The American Review of Public Administration. http://arp.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/05/12/0275074009359025.full.pdf
This lecture was presented via PowerPoint and will hopefully be posted on GUL. The lecture explored the methodology of a paper recently published by the presentor:
Grimes, M. and Lena Wängnerud (2010). Curbing Corruption through Social Welfare Reform? The Effects of Mexico’s Conditional Cash Transfer Program on Good Government. The American Review of Public Administration. http://arp.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/05/12/0275074009359025.full.pdf
GS2321: An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis
Agnes Cornell
According to the course description, "This lecture gives an introduction to the potentials of using multivariate statistical analysis in social science research. The aim is to provide the basic skills needed to read, interpret and evaluate results presented in research articles based on statistical methods. Furthermore it discusses some methodological (and design) challenges in this type of research such as the relation between theory and data, issues of correlation and causation, measurement validity, and data availability and reliability."
The lecture was presented via PowerPoint which will hopefully be posted on GUL and was a close analysis of:
Dunning, Thad. 2004. "Conditioning the Effects of Aid: Cold War Politics, Donor Credibility, and Democracy in Africa." International Organization 58 (02):409-23
According to the course description, "This lecture gives an introduction to the potentials of using multivariate statistical analysis in social science research. The aim is to provide the basic skills needed to read, interpret and evaluate results presented in research articles based on statistical methods. Furthermore it discusses some methodological (and design) challenges in this type of research such as the relation between theory and data, issues of correlation and causation, measurement validity, and data availability and reliability."
The lecture was presented via PowerPoint which will hopefully be posted on GUL and was a close analysis of:
Dunning, Thad. 2004. "Conditioning the Effects of Aid: Cold War Politics, Donor Credibility, and Democracy in Africa." International Organization 58 (02):409-23
GS2321: Comparative Analysis-- Regionalism
Fredrik Söderbaum
This presentation was made via PowerPoint and will, hopefully, be posted on GUL.
This presentation was made via PowerPoint and will, hopefully, be posted on GUL.
GS2321: Discourse Analysis
Maria Stern
This lecture explored discourse analysis as used by Maria Eriksson Baaz in her PhD dissertation and Maria Stern in the article, "Gender and Race in European Security Strategy: Europe as a Force for 'Good' ". Maria Stern said that both of these papers were posted on GUL but, unfortunately, I cannot find them.
Example 1: The Paternalism of Partnership by Maria Eriksson Baaz
- Interest/ Passion/ Curiosity
● donor identities within a post-colonial context
● donor identities and their manifestations
● How is development aid playing out in an African context?
-Research Problem
● How are donor identities constructed?
● How do aid workers see themselves in relation to their work with African partners in Tanzania?
● The above is relevant to development studies, aid, and post-colonialism and is both researchable and needed because it addresses gaps in the literature.
-Aim
● The construction of self in relationship to "partners".
-Methods
● Open-ended interviews of aid workers dealing with procedures and daily practices.
● Maria first created the interview texts and then used discourse analysis to analyze them.
-Theoretical underpinings
● Social constructivism
● Divisions between self and other
● The work of Stuart Hall who argues that identity is chosen as well as not chosen.
● Post-colonialism: Traces of colonial discourses are reproduced in current discourses.
-Delimitations
● The study is delimited via the theoretical underpinings.
-Operationalization
● Embedded in theories of post-colonialism
● It is possible to categorize identities such as how the self is represented through the other.
***Note: There is always a risk of finding what you are looking for.***
- Conclusions
● Discourses are complex and not simply post-colonial.
● Partnership neither replicates nor breaks from colonialism but is marked by a colonial past.
Example 2: ""Gender and Race in European Security Strategy: Europe as a Force for 'Good' " by Maria Stern
This lecture explored discourse analysis as used by Maria Eriksson Baaz in her PhD dissertation and Maria Stern in the article, "Gender and Race in European Security Strategy: Europe as a Force for 'Good' ". Maria Stern said that both of these papers were posted on GUL but, unfortunately, I cannot find them.
Example 1: The Paternalism of Partnership by Maria Eriksson Baaz
- Interest/ Passion/ Curiosity
● donor identities within a post-colonial context
● donor identities and their manifestations
● How is development aid playing out in an African context?
-Research Problem
● How are donor identities constructed?
● How do aid workers see themselves in relation to their work with African partners in Tanzania?
● The above is relevant to development studies, aid, and post-colonialism and is both researchable and needed because it addresses gaps in the literature.
-Aim
● The construction of self in relationship to "partners".
-Methods
● Open-ended interviews of aid workers dealing with procedures and daily practices.
● Maria first created the interview texts and then used discourse analysis to analyze them.
-Theoretical underpinings
● Social constructivism
● Divisions between self and other
● The work of Stuart Hall who argues that identity is chosen as well as not chosen.
● Post-colonialism: Traces of colonial discourses are reproduced in current discourses.
-Delimitations
● The study is delimited via the theoretical underpinings.
-Operationalization
● Embedded in theories of post-colonialism
● It is possible to categorize identities such as how the self is represented through the other.
***Note: There is always a risk of finding what you are looking for.***
- Conclusions
● Discourses are complex and not simply post-colonial.
● Partnership neither replicates nor breaks from colonialism but is marked by a colonial past.
Example 2: ""Gender and Race in European Security Strategy: Europe as a Force for 'Good' " by Maria Stern
- Please see article.
GS2321: Ethnography and Life History Interviews
Marita Eastmond
This presentation was made via PowerPoint and will, hopefully, be posted on GUL. The article that Marita references throughout the presentation is posted at:
https://gul.gu.se/courseId/41279/showMessage.do?id=454444&tableSortBynoticeboard=lastChanged
This presentation was made via PowerPoint and will, hopefully, be posted on GUL. The article that Marita references throughout the presentation is posted at:
https://gul.gu.se/courseId/41279/showMessage.do?id=454444&tableSortBynoticeboard=lastChanged
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Woefully behind...
Hi Everyone!
I'm so sorry that I have not updated the blog recently. I shall remedy the situation shortly.
Take care!
I'm so sorry that I have not updated the blog recently. I shall remedy the situation shortly.
Take care!
Monday, September 20, 2010
GS2321: Seminar 2
The following instructions are posted on GUL, https://gul.gu.se/public/courseId/41279/lang-sv/publicShowMessage.do?id=456149:
Purpose of Seminar 2:
The main purpose of the seminar is to assess and compare the research design of two different studies: one qualitative and one quantitative.
Individual preparation for the seminar:
Each student shall read both the papers uploaded at GUL (entitled seminar paper 1, and seminar paper 2). Each student should write a short report, comparing the two papers, based on the following questions (you don’t have to cover all questions, but can focus on those which you find useful in your comparison):
1. Please describe, according to your own understanding, the epistemology of the paper.
2. Is the research question/s well formulated and motivated? Why/why not? Is the research question answered during the course of paper? How?
3. Which are the case/cases of the study? How are they selected? Is the selection clear and well motivated?
3. How is theory used in the paper (in relation to the research problem/research question/s? In the analysis? In the form of a theoretical framework?). In what way/s, if any, does theory add to the quality of the paper?
4. Is the choice and implementation of the research method/s well formulated and motivated? How/why not?
5. How are the conclusions of the paper drawn? Do you agree with the conclusions? Are the conclusions firmly based on the empirical data presented in the thesis? What about the generalizability of the results?
6. Is this a thesis of high quality? Why/why not? (e.g. according to which criteria is the thesis good/not so good?)
If you participate actively in the seminar (e.g. contributing to the seminar discussions based on your individual preparation), you don’t have to submit your written report. However, if you fail to participate actively (being at the seminar unprepared or being absent from the seminar) you are requested to submit a written report of 2 – 4 pages (12p Times New Roman, 1,5 line spacing) to Per Knutsson (per.knutsson@globalstudies.gu.se).
Organization of the seminar:
There will be 8 seminar groups of which 4 meet 10 – 12 and 4 meet 13 – 15 (please refer to GUL to see which seminar group you should participate in and the course guide or schedule for information on which group room you should be in. The discussions of each seminar group will be lead by a seminar leader (a PhD-student or a lecturer).
GOOD LUCK!
Purpose of Seminar 2:
The main purpose of the seminar is to assess and compare the research design of two different studies: one qualitative and one quantitative.
Individual preparation for the seminar:
Each student shall read both the papers uploaded at GUL (entitled seminar paper 1, and seminar paper 2). Each student should write a short report, comparing the two papers, based on the following questions (you don’t have to cover all questions, but can focus on those which you find useful in your comparison):
1. Please describe, according to your own understanding, the epistemology of the paper.
2. Is the research question/s well formulated and motivated? Why/why not? Is the research question answered during the course of paper? How?
3. Which are the case/cases of the study? How are they selected? Is the selection clear and well motivated?
3. How is theory used in the paper (in relation to the research problem/research question/s? In the analysis? In the form of a theoretical framework?). In what way/s, if any, does theory add to the quality of the paper?
4. Is the choice and implementation of the research method/s well formulated and motivated? How/why not?
5. How are the conclusions of the paper drawn? Do you agree with the conclusions? Are the conclusions firmly based on the empirical data presented in the thesis? What about the generalizability of the results?
6. Is this a thesis of high quality? Why/why not? (e.g. according to which criteria is the thesis good/not so good?)
If you participate actively in the seminar (e.g. contributing to the seminar discussions based on your individual preparation), you don’t have to submit your written report. However, if you fail to participate actively (being at the seminar unprepared or being absent from the seminar) you are requested to submit a written report of 2 – 4 pages (12p Times New Roman, 1,5 line spacing) to Per Knutsson (per.knutsson@globalstudies.gu.se).
Organization of the seminar:
There will be 8 seminar groups of which 4 meet 10 – 12 and 4 meet 13 – 15 (please refer to GUL to see which seminar group you should participate in and the course guide or schedule for information on which group room you should be in. The discussions of each seminar group will be lead by a seminar leader (a PhD-student or a lecturer).
GOOD LUCK!
Saturday, September 11, 2010
GS2321: Mixed Methods
Per Knutsson
This lecture was delivered via PowerPoint. While this PowerPoint file has not yet been uploaded to GUL it is feasible that it will be unloaded in the near future.
This lecture was delivered via PowerPoint. While this PowerPoint file has not yet been uploaded to GUL it is feasible that it will be unloaded in the near future.
GS2321: The Qualitative/ Quantitative Divide
Anna Persson
This lecture was delivered via PowerPoint. While this PowerPoint file has not yet been uploaded to GUL it is feasible that it will be unloaded in the near future.
This lecture was delivered via PowerPoint. While this PowerPoint file has not yet been uploaded to GUL it is feasible that it will be unloaded in the near future.
GS2321: Comparative Case Studies
Martin Sjöstedt, Department of Political Science
Please see PowerPoint at https://gul.gu.se/public/courseId/41279/lang-sv/publicNoticeboard.do (Not yet posted)
Please see PowerPoint at https://gul.gu.se/public/courseId/41279/lang-sv/publicNoticeboard.do (Not yet posted)
GS2321: Single Case Studies
Joakim Öjendal, Department of Peace and Development, Gothenburg University
031-7864675
Lecture Outline
1. What is a case study?
2. Research Design (Abstract/ Concrete)
3. Example of a case study
4. Pro's and Con's of cases studies
5. Controversial aspects of case studies
What is a case study?
- A case study is a study of a specific case.
● This is the most simplistic definition of a case study.
- What key words are associated with case studies?
● Explore: A case study is exploratory and not a matter of hypothesis testing.
● Event/ Activity/ Process: Case studies are not limited to a village or a country and often include analysis of an event, activity, etc.
● Bounded in Space and/or Scope: The boundaries of a case must be defined.
● Detail/ Depth Oriented: A case study is a "thick" empirical study.
● History/ Time/ Chronology: The case must be understood in its own right and include exploration of history.
- Case studies are a common approach in the social sciences.
- Case studies are typically within the qualitative tradition
● In other words, case studies are usually not large, statistical studies.
-Case studies are done on something, somewhere, and in some place.
- Case studies are descriptive.
● They are also analytical but the approach is principally descriptive or "thick".
● Never the less, conclusions are and can be drawn from a case study.
- Case studies do entail "trial and error" and "learn as you go" approaches.
● A researcher does not always know what he or she is looking for at the outset.
● Knowledge/ theory is often generated as a result of the study.
● The case study may lead to the development of better research questions rather than a conclusion.
- Case studies are inductive and not, necessarily, driven by a theoretical framework.
● The data generates theory rather than the theory generating data.
- The goal of a case study is in-depth understanding and they are often very focused.
- Case studies are a way of getting away from journalism because they are framed, focused, comprehensive, in depth, and beyond generalization.
-All methods are applicable to case studies but life histories, interviews, participant observation, etc. are typical methodological approaches in certain academic traditions.
- If done well, a case study can yield more than an outsider's perspective of the case.
Weaknesses
- You do not start with a hypothesis.
- Case studies are often messy and seemingly lacking in a red thread.
- It is difficult to produce a coherent narrative.
- Case studies are risky because the researcher may not come up with anything important.
- Representation is a major problem.
● It is important to ask: what does one case actually represent?
● A hypothesis is generated as a result of the study.
● Representation is strengthened through multiple case studies.
● As a result, a researcher must be careful of generalizing.
- It is difficult to determine the boundaries of the case or where it begins and ends.
● The boundaries of the case must be constantly questioned and justified.
● Anything and everything can and will be contested by the audience of the case study.
● However, anything goes as long as it is justified.
-When should a researcher select single/ multiple case studies as a key methodological approach?
● Single case studies are the dominate approach in qualitative research.
● Multiple case studies are a reasonable approach in qualitative research.
● Statistical analysis doesn't (usually) make sense in qualitative research.
● Single case studies don't (usually) make sense in quantitative research.
● Multiple case studies are a reasonable approach in quantitative research.
● Statistical analysis is the dominate approach in quantitative research.
Research Design Checklist
i) Passion is absolutely essential!
ii) The research problem is the key to everything and must be coherent with the research design.
iii) Case studies can be used to delimit/ focus the research problem.
iv) Operationalization
v) Theory: There must be a correlation between theory, the case study, and the research problem.
vi) Method: A case study is a part of a methodological design but is also governed by methods.
vii) Ethics become increasingly important in a case study and a researcher must ask, Who could I hurt/ abuse? Who could I anger? Will I traumatize people with my questions?
viii) Framework: What does it all mean?/ How does the case study feed into the larger analytical questions?
ix) Writing/ Voice: What can I say in my case study? What does my audience want to hear?
Example of a Case Study
- Joakim studied development in Cambodia in relation to food production and, more specifically, water management.
- He believes that there is a huge need for improved water management in rural Cambodia as well as a need to research effective water management systems.
- Research question: Can small scale water management improve water access?
- In selecting cases, Joakim tried to avoid extremes.
● He did this in an effort to make his conclusions more likely and generalizable.
- He ended up with three cases and spent 4-6 weeks studying each in turn.
- One thing he took away from the experience: There is always excess data that cannot be explored and does not fit into the analytical frame.
- Some of Joakim's personal conclusions:
● No study is ever ideal.
● Studies are limited by time, access, funding, etc.
● Often only weak comparisons can be made between cases which can be intentional and incorporated into the research design.
● Joakim was a little too analytical from the outset and was criticized by colleagues as a result.
● Overall, though, it was a successful study despite the fact that the findings could not be generalized.
- The bottom line: Be humble in your ignorance.
031-7864675
Lecture Outline
1. What is a case study?
2. Research Design (Abstract/ Concrete)
3. Example of a case study
4. Pro's and Con's of cases studies
5. Controversial aspects of case studies
What is a case study?
- A case study is a study of a specific case.
● This is the most simplistic definition of a case study.
- What key words are associated with case studies?
● Explore: A case study is exploratory and not a matter of hypothesis testing.
● Event/ Activity/ Process: Case studies are not limited to a village or a country and often include analysis of an event, activity, etc.
● Bounded in Space and/or Scope: The boundaries of a case must be defined.
● Detail/ Depth Oriented: A case study is a "thick" empirical study.
● History/ Time/ Chronology: The case must be understood in its own right and include exploration of history.
- Case studies are a common approach in the social sciences.
- Case studies are typically within the qualitative tradition
● In other words, case studies are usually not large, statistical studies.
-Case studies are done on something, somewhere, and in some place.
- Case studies are descriptive.
● They are also analytical but the approach is principally descriptive or "thick".
● Never the less, conclusions are and can be drawn from a case study.
- Case studies do entail "trial and error" and "learn as you go" approaches.
● A researcher does not always know what he or she is looking for at the outset.
● Knowledge/ theory is often generated as a result of the study.
● The case study may lead to the development of better research questions rather than a conclusion.
- Case studies are inductive and not, necessarily, driven by a theoretical framework.
● The data generates theory rather than the theory generating data.
- The goal of a case study is in-depth understanding and they are often very focused.
- Case studies are a way of getting away from journalism because they are framed, focused, comprehensive, in depth, and beyond generalization.
-All methods are applicable to case studies but life histories, interviews, participant observation, etc. are typical methodological approaches in certain academic traditions.
- If done well, a case study can yield more than an outsider's perspective of the case.
Weaknesses
- You do not start with a hypothesis.
- Case studies are often messy and seemingly lacking in a red thread.
- It is difficult to produce a coherent narrative.
- Case studies are risky because the researcher may not come up with anything important.
- Representation is a major problem.
● It is important to ask: what does one case actually represent?
● A hypothesis is generated as a result of the study.
● Representation is strengthened through multiple case studies.
● As a result, a researcher must be careful of generalizing.
- It is difficult to determine the boundaries of the case or where it begins and ends.
● The boundaries of the case must be constantly questioned and justified.
● Anything and everything can and will be contested by the audience of the case study.
● However, anything goes as long as it is justified.
-When should a researcher select single/ multiple case studies as a key methodological approach?
● Single case studies are the dominate approach in qualitative research.
● Multiple case studies are a reasonable approach in qualitative research.
● Statistical analysis doesn't (usually) make sense in qualitative research.
● Single case studies don't (usually) make sense in quantitative research.
● Multiple case studies are a reasonable approach in quantitative research.
● Statistical analysis is the dominate approach in quantitative research.
Research Design Checklist
i) Passion is absolutely essential!
ii) The research problem is the key to everything and must be coherent with the research design.
iii) Case studies can be used to delimit/ focus the research problem.
iv) Operationalization
v) Theory: There must be a correlation between theory, the case study, and the research problem.
vi) Method: A case study is a part of a methodological design but is also governed by methods.
vii) Ethics become increasingly important in a case study and a researcher must ask, Who could I hurt/ abuse? Who could I anger? Will I traumatize people with my questions?
viii) Framework: What does it all mean?/ How does the case study feed into the larger analytical questions?
ix) Writing/ Voice: What can I say in my case study? What does my audience want to hear?
Example of a Case Study
- Joakim studied development in Cambodia in relation to food production and, more specifically, water management.
- He believes that there is a huge need for improved water management in rural Cambodia as well as a need to research effective water management systems.
- Research question: Can small scale water management improve water access?
- In selecting cases, Joakim tried to avoid extremes.
● He did this in an effort to make his conclusions more likely and generalizable.
- He ended up with three cases and spent 4-6 weeks studying each in turn.
- One thing he took away from the experience: There is always excess data that cannot be explored and does not fit into the analytical frame.
- Some of Joakim's personal conclusions:
● No study is ever ideal.
● Studies are limited by time, access, funding, etc.
● Often only weak comparisons can be made between cases which can be intentional and incorporated into the research design.
● Joakim was a little too analytical from the outset and was criticized by colleagues as a result.
● Overall, though, it was a successful study despite the fact that the findings could not be generalized.
- The bottom line: Be humble in your ignorance.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
GS2321: Seminar 1
Thursday, September 9, 10.00-12.00 or 13.00-15.00 at the School of Global Studies
The following is posted on GUL, https://gul.gu.se/public/courseId/41279/lang-sv/publicShowMessage.do?id=456149
Purpose of Seminar 1
There are two main purposes of the seminar. The first is to assess and discuss research design (including epistemological and ontological considerations) in a given thesis, based on the initial lectures of the course and the literature assigned to these lectures. The second purpose the seminar is to discuss the criteria by which we assess the quality of a master thesis.
Individual preparation for the seminar
Each student shall read one of the three master theses uploaded at GUL (entitled master thesis 1, 2 and 3) intensively (in detail) and the other two more extensively (you should be able to follow discussions on the research design of these master theses during the seminar). Each student should write a short report on the thesis which they have read in detail, based on the following questions:
1. Please describe and reflect upon the underlying epistemological and ontological assumptions of the thesis, according to your own understanding,.
2. Is the research question/s well formulated and motivated? Why/why not? Is the research question answered during the course of thesis? How?
3. How is theory used in the thesis (in relation to the research problem/research question/s? In the analysis? In the form of a theoretical framework?). In what way/s, if any, does theory add to the quality of the thesis?
4. Are the choice and implementation of the research method/s well formulated and motivated? How/why not?
5. How are the conclusions of the thesis drawn? Do you agree with the conclusions? Are the conclusions firmly based on the empirical data presented in the thesis?
6. Is this a thesis of high quality? Why/why not? (e.g. according to which criteria is the thesis good/not so good?)
If you participate actively in the seminar (e.g. contributing to the seminar discussions based on your individual preparation), you don’t have to submit your written report. However, if you fail to participate actively (being at the seminar unprepared or being absent from the seminar) you are requested to submit a written report of 2 – 4 pages (12p Times New Roman, 1,5 line spacing) to Per Knutsson (per.knutsson@globalstudies.gu.se).
The following is posted on GUL, https://gul.gu.se/public/courseId/41279/lang-sv/publicShowMessage.do?id=456149
Purpose of Seminar 1
There are two main purposes of the seminar. The first is to assess and discuss research design (including epistemological and ontological considerations) in a given thesis, based on the initial lectures of the course and the literature assigned to these lectures. The second purpose the seminar is to discuss the criteria by which we assess the quality of a master thesis.
Individual preparation for the seminar
Each student shall read one of the three master theses uploaded at GUL (entitled master thesis 1, 2 and 3) intensively (in detail) and the other two more extensively (you should be able to follow discussions on the research design of these master theses during the seminar). Each student should write a short report on the thesis which they have read in detail, based on the following questions:
1. Please describe and reflect upon the underlying epistemological and ontological assumptions of the thesis, according to your own understanding,.
2. Is the research question/s well formulated and motivated? Why/why not? Is the research question answered during the course of thesis? How?
3. How is theory used in the thesis (in relation to the research problem/research question/s? In the analysis? In the form of a theoretical framework?). In what way/s, if any, does theory add to the quality of the thesis?
4. Are the choice and implementation of the research method/s well formulated and motivated? How/why not?
5. How are the conclusions of the thesis drawn? Do you agree with the conclusions? Are the conclusions firmly based on the empirical data presented in the thesis?
6. Is this a thesis of high quality? Why/why not? (e.g. according to which criteria is the thesis good/not so good?)
If you participate actively in the seminar (e.g. contributing to the seminar discussions based on your individual preparation), you don’t have to submit your written report. However, if you fail to participate actively (being at the seminar unprepared or being absent from the seminar) you are requested to submit a written report of 2 – 4 pages (12p Times New Roman, 1,5 line spacing) to Per Knutsson (per.knutsson@globalstudies.gu.se).
GS2321: Introduction to Research Design
Maria Stern, International Relations
Introductory Note
Research may appear simple until you start doing it yourself. It is important to keep in mind that confusion and frustration are absolutely normal.
Review
- Epistemology: How we can know (which has an impact on methods and research questions)
- Ontology: How we understand the world / What are the relevant units of analysis?
- Method: What are our tools of research and analysis?
- Ethics: The rights and responsibilities that govern the relationship between researcher and subject
- Methodology: How epistemology, ontology, method, and ethical responsibilities work together
Research Design
-Step One: Interest / Passion / Curiosity
● Interest, passion, and curiosity about your topic and research question are absolutely vital.
● They help you to identify a problem, topic, and/or a theoretical puzzle.
● Your problem, topic, and our theoretical puzzle must be justified/ defended, ideally in the introduction of your thesis. In other words, you must specify the motivation of your study as well as the relevance (in relation to "reality" and/ or in relation to other research theories), the contribution (in relation to existing literature and/ or academic debates), and aim (what is the point of your research).
-Step Two: Purpose Statement
● You must state the purpose of your research.
● You must also state a central question. It is important to note that this central question can and will be reformulated throughout the research process. If you are conducting a quantitative study, your central question is likely to be a hypothesis. If you are a conducting a qualitative study, your central question is likely to be a theme.
● You must also state researchable sub-questions that delimit your study.
- Step Three: Theoretical Underpinnings
● Your theoretical underpinnings must be made explicit.
● These are usually based on or derived from the literature review.
● They are used to motivate your research problem.
● They also help you to formulate researchable questions.
● Most importantly, theoretical underpinnings provide a theoretical framework for your analysis and must be explicitly stated.
- Step Four: Method
● Method is an account of what you are going to do and why. In selecting a method, you should consider the following questions:
→ How does your choice relate to your aim, questions, and the theoretical underpinnings of your study?
→ Do you need to use more than one method?
→ How feasible are your methods?
- Step Five: Ethical Considerations
● The Swedish Research Council has established guidelines and these will (probably) be posted on GUL.
● It is important to consider ethics but not to get too bogged down by them. If you do, it is virtually impossible to complete your study.
- Step Six: Writing Process
● It is important to consider and understand your audience.
● It is also important to consider your voice. In other words, how present will you be in the text? This is related to method as well as epistemology and ontology.
Concluding Remarks
- The steps detailed above are simply a guideline and subject to change. If you follow them sequentially, you are in a small minority.
- It is virtually impossible to complete all of these steps perfectly so don't be too hard on yourself.
Introductory Note
Research may appear simple until you start doing it yourself. It is important to keep in mind that confusion and frustration are absolutely normal.
Review
- Epistemology: How we can know (which has an impact on methods and research questions)
- Ontology: How we understand the world / What are the relevant units of analysis?
- Method: What are our tools of research and analysis?
- Ethics: The rights and responsibilities that govern the relationship between researcher and subject
- Methodology: How epistemology, ontology, method, and ethical responsibilities work together
Research Design
-Step One: Interest / Passion / Curiosity
● Interest, passion, and curiosity about your topic and research question are absolutely vital.
● They help you to identify a problem, topic, and/or a theoretical puzzle.
● Your problem, topic, and our theoretical puzzle must be justified/ defended, ideally in the introduction of your thesis. In other words, you must specify the motivation of your study as well as the relevance (in relation to "reality" and/ or in relation to other research theories), the contribution (in relation to existing literature and/ or academic debates), and aim (what is the point of your research).
-Step Two: Purpose Statement
● You must state the purpose of your research.
● You must also state a central question. It is important to note that this central question can and will be reformulated throughout the research process. If you are conducting a quantitative study, your central question is likely to be a hypothesis. If you are a conducting a qualitative study, your central question is likely to be a theme.
● You must also state researchable sub-questions that delimit your study.
- Step Three: Theoretical Underpinnings
● Your theoretical underpinnings must be made explicit.
● These are usually based on or derived from the literature review.
● They are used to motivate your research problem.
● They also help you to formulate researchable questions.
● Most importantly, theoretical underpinnings provide a theoretical framework for your analysis and must be explicitly stated.
- Step Four: Method
● Method is an account of what you are going to do and why. In selecting a method, you should consider the following questions:
→ How does your choice relate to your aim, questions, and the theoretical underpinnings of your study?
→ Do you need to use more than one method?
→ How feasible are your methods?
- Step Five: Ethical Considerations
● The Swedish Research Council has established guidelines and these will (probably) be posted on GUL.
● It is important to consider ethics but not to get too bogged down by them. If you do, it is virtually impossible to complete your study.
- Step Six: Writing Process
● It is important to consider and understand your audience.
● It is also important to consider your voice. In other words, how present will you be in the text? This is related to method as well as epistemology and ontology.
Concluding Remarks
- The steps detailed above are simply a guideline and subject to change. If you follow them sequentially, you are in a small minority.
- It is virtually impossible to complete all of these steps perfectly so don't be too hard on yourself.
GS2321: Ontology and Epistemology
Erik Andersson, International Relations
What is the nature of research?
- To do research is to produce meaning and knowledge.
- Research is expensive but is accorded a high status in society.
-Why then do universities invest so much money in research?
● Research appeals to certain principles including openness with regard to sources, methodology, and theoretical framework; accessibility to criticism which helps to determine reliability and validity; and collective ownership of the information and conclusions.
● These principles are upheld so that research can contribute to "development".
● Research happens within a contextof epistemology and ontology.
Ontology
- The Oxford English Dictionary defines ontology as, "the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being."
-Ontology varies between academic disciplines.
● In international relations, for example, some say that the primary entity is actors while others such as nation-states while other contend that it is structures.
● International relations research must relate to these ontologies.
-Depending on your adopted onotology, you will produce different research.
● History: Imminence ↔ Intention
● Identity: Primordialism ↔ Constructivism (J. Butler)
● Philosophy: Dualism (mind/matter) ↔ Holism
Epistemology
- The Oxford English Dictionary defines epistemology as, "the theory of knowledge especially with regard to methods and validity."
Qualitative ↔ Quantitative Epistemologies
- The divisions between qualitative and quantitative epistemologies was the subject of intense academic debate for centuries. However, now, most agree that both are imporatnt and scientific.
● In other words, one cannot understand the social phenomena of divorce without interviews (qualitative research) and statistical analysis (quantitative research).
● Most also agree that you can't engage in quantiative analysis without first thinking about meaning and ideas.
● The reverse is also true; qualitative analysis necessitates quantitative analysis.
● Thus, qualitative research can be and is often conducted on the foundation of a quantative notion.
● See more information see Alvesson and Deetz.
Subjectivity ↔ Objectivity
- Can a researcher divorce themselves from their research and be objective? Yes and no.
● A subjective researcher can attempt to be more objective by being open and transparent about their biases.
- Is there any pure/objective "data"?
● "Data" is always approaced through onological and epistemological lenses.
● "Data" in the social sciences is usally constructed and interpreted according to specified frameworks.
Induction (discovery) ↔ Deduction (hypothesis testing)
- Pure induction does not exist but is related to ontology, epistemology, and worldview.
- These are useful general approaches.
Paradigms
- Paradigms are small, scientific discourses in regard to how experiements are conducted and how research is done.
- Discourse is a similar concept.
- Different paradigms have different languages.
● Language itself is not neutral and, as a result, must be considered and analyzed.
● Economists of a certain kind speak and write in specific ways.
- Language relates to and is influneced by ontologies and epistemologies.
- Language is what we use to tell the "truth" and express and interpret "data".
● "Truth" is always preliminary to some and always valid to others.
Methodology
- The Oxford English Dictionary defines methodology as, "the science of method or body of methods used in a particular branch of science."
- It is important to distinguish between empirical and analytical methods.
● For example, in your thesis, it is useful to specify that you did one thing in the field and something else when you got home because...
Coherence
-A thesis must be coherent on all levels!
● In other words, don't mix ontological concepts with incompatible epistemological procedures.
-Coherence is created through theory.
● Theory helps the research with positioning, analytical "tools"/ framework, and contribution.
● Positioning is done through literature review and details how your research will contribute to and build upon previous research. (It is important to express agreement as well as disagreement with previous research.)
● Analytical "tools"/ framework can be conceptual and eclectic in which you take bits and pieces from established theories in order to construct your own as well as to define variables.
● Contribution helps show validity, reliability, etc. and outlines how your research alters the ways in which we see the world.
What is the nature of research?
- To do research is to produce meaning and knowledge.
- Research is expensive but is accorded a high status in society.
-Why then do universities invest so much money in research?
● Research appeals to certain principles including openness with regard to sources, methodology, and theoretical framework; accessibility to criticism which helps to determine reliability and validity; and collective ownership of the information and conclusions.
● These principles are upheld so that research can contribute to "development".
● Research happens within a contextof epistemology and ontology.
Ontology
- The Oxford English Dictionary defines ontology as, "the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being."
-Ontology varies between academic disciplines.
● In international relations, for example, some say that the primary entity is actors while others such as nation-states while other contend that it is structures.
● International relations research must relate to these ontologies.
-Depending on your adopted onotology, you will produce different research.
● History: Imminence ↔ Intention
● Identity: Primordialism ↔ Constructivism (J. Butler)
● Philosophy: Dualism (mind/matter) ↔ Holism
Epistemology
- The Oxford English Dictionary defines epistemology as, "the theory of knowledge especially with regard to methods and validity."
Qualitative ↔ Quantitative Epistemologies
- The divisions between qualitative and quantitative epistemologies was the subject of intense academic debate for centuries. However, now, most agree that both are imporatnt and scientific.
● In other words, one cannot understand the social phenomena of divorce without interviews (qualitative research) and statistical analysis (quantitative research).
● Most also agree that you can't engage in quantiative analysis without first thinking about meaning and ideas.
● The reverse is also true; qualitative analysis necessitates quantitative analysis.
● Thus, qualitative research can be and is often conducted on the foundation of a quantative notion.
● See more information see Alvesson and Deetz.
Subjectivity ↔ Objectivity
- Can a researcher divorce themselves from their research and be objective? Yes and no.
● A subjective researcher can attempt to be more objective by being open and transparent about their biases.
- Is there any pure/objective "data"?
● "Data" is always approaced through onological and epistemological lenses.
● "Data" in the social sciences is usally constructed and interpreted according to specified frameworks.
Induction (discovery) ↔ Deduction (hypothesis testing)
- Pure induction does not exist but is related to ontology, epistemology, and worldview.
- These are useful general approaches.
Paradigms
- Paradigms are small, scientific discourses in regard to how experiements are conducted and how research is done.
- Discourse is a similar concept.
- Different paradigms have different languages.
● Language itself is not neutral and, as a result, must be considered and analyzed.
● Economists of a certain kind speak and write in specific ways.
- Language relates to and is influneced by ontologies and epistemologies.
- Language is what we use to tell the "truth" and express and interpret "data".
● "Truth" is always preliminary to some and always valid to others.
Methodology
- The Oxford English Dictionary defines methodology as, "the science of method or body of methods used in a particular branch of science."
- It is important to distinguish between empirical and analytical methods.
● For example, in your thesis, it is useful to specify that you did one thing in the field and something else when you got home because...
Coherence
-A thesis must be coherent on all levels!
● In other words, don't mix ontological concepts with incompatible epistemological procedures.
-Coherence is created through theory.
● Theory helps the research with positioning, analytical "tools"/ framework, and contribution.
● Positioning is done through literature review and details how your research will contribute to and build upon previous research. (It is important to express agreement as well as disagreement with previous research.)
● Analytical "tools"/ framework can be conceptual and eclectic in which you take bits and pieces from established theories in order to construct your own as well as to define variables.
● Contribution helps show validity, reliability, etc. and outlines how your research alters the ways in which we see the world.
GS2321: Research Design and Methods, Introduction
Per Knutsson, School of Global Studies
Learning Outcomes
- Students will understand the power and limitations of various research methods.
- Students will evaluate the validity and reliability of secondary data.
- Students will evaluate and design data collection methods.
- Students will assess ethical issues.
- Students will design and plan an independent research project using quantitative and/or qualitative methods.
- Students will critically reflect on the coherence of research designs.
Course Structure
- Part one: Research Design and Methods (planning and overarching questions.
- Part two: Either Quantitative or Qualitative Methods
Content
- Students will work towards writing a master thesis through exploration of the following:
● Ontology and Epistemology
● Introduction to research design
● Single and comparative case studies
● Quantitative/ Qualitative divide
● Mixed methods
● Crash course on quantitative and qualitative research designs, methods, and data analysis
Seminars
- 1st: Evaluate and discuss the research design of a master thesis.
- 2nd: Evaluate and discuss research design and selection of cases in research papers.
- 3rd: Propose a research design based on a specific research theme/ question.
Course Coordinators
- Per Knutsson, "the spider in the web"
- Maria Stern
- Anna Persson
- Martin Sjöstedt
Part Two: Qualitative Methods
- ethnography and participant observation
- interviews
- discourse and argumentation analysis
- action research and trans-disciplinary methods
-policy and project evaluation
Part Two: Quantitative Methods
- Evaluate correlations
- Estimate regressions
- How to interpret results
What's Expected in a Master Thesis?
- One of the principal expectations is a coherent argument running throughout the thesis.
- The thesis must unfold logically.
- Conclusions must be theoretically and empirically based.
- The thesis must have a well-defined, viable, relevant, and feasible research question.
- It is essential that you "live" with your research question.
- The thesis must be no more than 25,000 words in length.
Learning Outcomes
- Students will understand the power and limitations of various research methods.
- Students will evaluate the validity and reliability of secondary data.
- Students will evaluate and design data collection methods.
- Students will assess ethical issues.
- Students will design and plan an independent research project using quantitative and/or qualitative methods.
- Students will critically reflect on the coherence of research designs.
Course Structure
- Part one: Research Design and Methods (planning and overarching questions.
- Part two: Either Quantitative or Qualitative Methods
Content
- Students will work towards writing a master thesis through exploration of the following:
● Ontology and Epistemology
● Introduction to research design
● Single and comparative case studies
● Quantitative/ Qualitative divide
● Mixed methods
● Crash course on quantitative and qualitative research designs, methods, and data analysis
Seminars
- 1st: Evaluate and discuss the research design of a master thesis.
- 2nd: Evaluate and discuss research design and selection of cases in research papers.
- 3rd: Propose a research design based on a specific research theme/ question.
Course Coordinators
- Per Knutsson, "the spider in the web"
- Maria Stern
- Anna Persson
- Martin Sjöstedt
Part Two: Qualitative Methods
- ethnography and participant observation
- interviews
- discourse and argumentation analysis
- action research and trans-disciplinary methods
-policy and project evaluation
Part Two: Quantitative Methods
- Evaluate correlations
- Estimate regressions
- How to interpret results
What's Expected in a Master Thesis?
- One of the principal expectations is a coherent argument running throughout the thesis.
- The thesis must unfold logically.
- Conclusions must be theoretically and empirically based.
- The thesis must have a well-defined, viable, relevant, and feasible research question.
- It is essential that you "live" with your research question.
- The thesis must be no more than 25,000 words in length.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Final Examination
Question
If one would like to argue that some peace initiatives have been taken in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (and some agreements have been signed), how would you describe the transformation of the conflict dynamic? Also, what possible solutions have been discussed concerning the overarching, as well as the key issues, and what causes to the remaining gaps can we identity?
Instructions
Answer the question with reference to the obligatory literature. You shall use a maximum of 4,000 words in order to answer the above question. Make an elaborated analysis where you both are referring to and have critical standpoints on the various authors of the obligatory literature. The examination must be submitted to Michael's Urkund address no later than 10.15 on 4 June 2010. (Do not submit a hard copy.)
If one would like to argue that some peace initiatives have been taken in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (and some agreements have been signed), how would you describe the transformation of the conflict dynamic? Also, what possible solutions have been discussed concerning the overarching, as well as the key issues, and what causes to the remaining gaps can we identity?
Instructions
Answer the question with reference to the obligatory literature. You shall use a maximum of 4,000 words in order to answer the above question. Make an elaborated analysis where you both are referring to and have critical standpoints on the various authors of the obligatory literature. The examination must be submitted to Michael's Urkund address no later than 10.15 on 4 June 2010. (Do not submit a hard copy.)
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Exercise #5: Is Peace Possible?
Michael Schulz
This exercise will occur on Friday, May 28, 2010 from 10:15-12:00 in room 407.
The following directions are posted on the course portal:
Göteborg 2010-05-28
EXERCISE 5
RS2235, The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 15 higher education credits
SPRING 2010
Is peace possible?
Make use of the book by Mahler et al. Also, if possible “google” on the net, and try to analyse the common grounds/bridges of different proposals in the conflict? Which one is closest in the sense that it builds common ground between the parties? Which is most difficult? How have the proposal dealt with the key issues of the conflict? Do you have any recommendations for improvement of a proposal you think has most potential, and in such case, what changes do you suggest? You will be divided into groups that discuss the arguments, and in the end of the seminar you will have a plenary discussion.
Good Luck!
This exercise will occur on Friday, May 28, 2010 from 10:15-12:00 in room 407.
The following directions are posted on the course portal:
Göteborg 2010-05-28
EXERCISE 5
RS2235, The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 15 higher education credits
SPRING 2010
Is peace possible?
Make use of the book by Mahler et al. Also, if possible “google” on the net, and try to analyse the common grounds/bridges of different proposals in the conflict? Which one is closest in the sense that it builds common ground between the parties? Which is most difficult? How have the proposal dealt with the key issues of the conflict? Do you have any recommendations for improvement of a proposal you think has most potential, and in such case, what changes do you suggest? You will be divided into groups that discuss the arguments, and in the end of the seminar you will have a plenary discussion.
Good Luck!
Exercise #4: Oral Presentations
Michael Schulz
Oral presentations will be held on Monday, May 17, 2010 from 13:15-15:00 in room 325.
The following directions are posted on the course portal:
Göteborg 2010-05-12
EXERCISE 4
RS2235, The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 15 higher education credits
SPRING 2010
Assignment (oral presentation)
The students shall individually and independently search for and compile information about a specific topic (chosen by the student) within the fields presented below. The work will be presented orally to the other students at the seminar on May 17, 13-15. The idea is to both develop the skills to search relevant scientific information and material concerning an issue linked to the “research-front”. You will be divided into groups and present for each other.
• Historical perspectives of the conflict
• The war of 1948-49, 1956, 1967, or 1973
• The Palestinization of the conflict
• Israeli and/or Palestinian societies
• Negotiations and conflict resolution attempts
• First and/or second intifadas
Good Luck!
Oral presentations will be held on Monday, May 17, 2010 from 13:15-15:00 in room 325.
The following directions are posted on the course portal:
Göteborg 2010-05-12
EXERCISE 4
RS2235, The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 15 higher education credits
SPRING 2010
Assignment (oral presentation)
The students shall individually and independently search for and compile information about a specific topic (chosen by the student) within the fields presented below. The work will be presented orally to the other students at the seminar on May 17, 13-15. The idea is to both develop the skills to search relevant scientific information and material concerning an issue linked to the “research-front”. You will be divided into groups and present for each other.
• Historical perspectives of the conflict
• The war of 1948-49, 1956, 1967, or 1973
• The Palestinization of the conflict
• Israeli and/or Palestinian societies
• Negotiations and conflict resolution attempts
• First and/or second intifadas
Good Luck!
Exercise #3: Israeli Society
This is what we came up with during the exercise...
Melting-pot
Unit of analysis:
Intra Jewish relations in Israel
Yes:
- Everyone has a say
- International view Israel as a unified Jewish community
No:
- No group is willing to make concessions to become more like other groups
- Extremely stratified, divisive; between Jews, excluding Arabs
- External actors
Pluralist
Unit of analysis:
Intra Jewish relations and Arab Jewish relations and secular-religious relations
Yes:
- Seems to represent the principle cleavages in Israeli society
- Distribution of power between ethnic groups
No:
- Intra Arab relations
- Gender
- External actors
Class/Ethnicity
Unit of analysis:
Intra Jewish relations in Israel between Ashkenazim and Oriental
- Economic-ideological
Yes:
- Economic Jewish structural divisions
- Ideological division (Ashkenazi more secular )
No:
- Internal divisions within these two groups as well
- Secular-religious division is now more important (unitary view of the communities) esp. settler movement
Jewish-Arab relations
- Economic political
- External actors
Yes:
- Economic Arab-Jewish institutional divisions
No:
- Unitary view of Arabs
- External actors
Multi-melting pot
Unit of analysis:
Israeli “ethnic” relations
Yes:
- Fills the ethnic “gaps”
- Address the globalization of culture
No:
- Leaves out religious relations
- External actors (Iraq, Iran, US)
Post-multi-melting pot (This is a theory our group created to address minor gaps in the Multi-melting pot theory.)
Unit of analysis: Israeli global-socio-political relations (including ethnicity, religion, gender, ideology, class relations, culture, etc.)
Yes: See above
No: See above
Melting-pot
Unit of analysis:
Intra Jewish relations in Israel
Yes:
- Everyone has a say
- International view Israel as a unified Jewish community
No:
- No group is willing to make concessions to become more like other groups
- Extremely stratified, divisive; between Jews, excluding Arabs
- External actors
Pluralist
Unit of analysis:
Intra Jewish relations and Arab Jewish relations and secular-religious relations
Yes:
- Seems to represent the principle cleavages in Israeli society
- Distribution of power between ethnic groups
No:
- Intra Arab relations
- Gender
- External actors
Class/Ethnicity
Unit of analysis:
Intra Jewish relations in Israel between Ashkenazim and Oriental
- Economic-ideological
Yes:
- Economic Jewish structural divisions
- Ideological division (Ashkenazi more secular )
No:
- Internal divisions within these two groups as well
- Secular-religious division is now more important (unitary view of the communities) esp. settler movement
Jewish-Arab relations
- Economic political
- External actors
Yes:
- Economic Arab-Jewish institutional divisions
No:
- Unitary view of Arabs
- External actors
Multi-melting pot
Unit of analysis:
Israeli “ethnic” relations
Yes:
- Fills the ethnic “gaps”
- Address the globalization of culture
No:
- Leaves out religious relations
- External actors (Iraq, Iran, US)
Post-multi-melting pot (This is a theory our group created to address minor gaps in the Multi-melting pot theory.)
Unit of analysis: Israeli global-socio-political relations (including ethnicity, religion, gender, ideology, class relations, culture, etc.)
Yes: See above
No: See above
Exercise #2: Prospects for Peace after 1967
This is what I prepared for the exercise...
What do we know about the Six Day/June War?
● Israel attacked first on June 5, 1967, attacking the Egyptian air force.
● Israel termed the attack “pre-emptive” in response to what they deemed an imminent
attack by Arab military forces including forces from Egypt, Syria, Jordan with less
substantial troop contributions from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria.
● Egypt had amassed more than 100,000 troops in the Sinai as well as expelled UN
peacekeepers and closed the Straits of Tiran prior to Israel’s attack.
● Syria’s army was amassed in the Golan Heights on their border with Israel.
● Jordan (reluctantly) amassed forces in the West Bank which they had occupied since 1948.
● Israel easily won the war in 6 days, claiming the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Desert (from
Egypt), the West Bank and Jerusalem (from Jordan), and the Golan Heights (from Syria).
● Israel latter “traded” the Sinai Desert “for peace” with Egypt but annexed the Golan
Heights and Jerusalem and continue to occupy the West Bank and the Gaza Strip—
though the occupation of the Gaza Strip is to a lesser degree than the occupation of the
West Bank.
● On September 1, 1967, the Arab League met in Khartoum, Sudan and passed the
Khartoum Resolution which stated “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no
negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own
country” (Article 3).
● Israel has long sided the Khartoum Resolution as evidence that there is no one of the
Arab side with which to negotiate.
● Egyptian President, Anwar Sadat, broke with the Khartoum Resolution when he visited
Jerusalem (November 1977) and subsequently signed the Camp David Accords in 1978 which “traded land for peace”--- in this case, the Sinai Desert was returned to Egypt in exchange for peace with Israel. In addition, Israeli ships were granted passage through the Suez canal and the Strait of Tiran, the Gulf of Aqaba and the Taba—Rafah straits were recognized as
international waterways.
Was Israel ready for peace after 1967?--- Yes.
From Myths and Facts by Mitchell G. Bard, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf7.html#e
MYTH
“After the 1967 war, Israel refused to negotiate a settlement with the Arabs.”
FACT
After its victory in the Six-Day War, Israel hoped the Arab states would enter peace negotiations. Israel signaled to the Arab states its willingness to relinquish virtually all the territories it acquired in exchange for peace. As Moshe Dayan put it, Jerusalem was waiting only for a telephone call from Arab leaders to start negotiations. But these hopes were dashed in August 1967 when Arab leaders meeting in Khartoum adopted a formula of three noes: "no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel...." As former Israeli President Chaim Herzog wrote: "Israel's belief that the war had come to an end and that peace would now reign along the borders was soon dispelled. Three weeks after the conclusion of hostilities, the first major incident occurred on the Suez Canal."
Was Israel ready for peace after 1967?--- No.
From Elon, Amos (2002), “Israelis and Palestinians: What Went Wrong” The New York Times Review of Books, December 19, 2002, Accessed 14 April 2010, Available at http://www94.homepage.villanova.edu/peter.knapp/What%20went%20wrong.pdf.
● Israel immediately sought to settle, colonize and annex parts of the West Bank, the Gaza
Strip and the Golan Heights.
● Israel never had any intention of ceding the Gaza Strip and the West Bank for peace.
● Israel’s victory had humiliated Soviet allies, thus the U.S. was not interested in a peaceful
resolution of the conflict.
● Israel believed it held a far superior position to the Arab states and thus were determined
to hold their ground until the Arabs gave in.
● Israel was unwilling to cede any part of Jerusalem to Jordan in exchange for peace.
● According to Michael Ben Yair, Israel's attorney general in the Rabin government, “The
Six-Day War was forced on us; but the war's Seventh day, which began on June 12,
1967—continues to this day and is the product of our choice. We enthusiastically chose
to become a colonialist society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands,
transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding
justifications for all this.” (cited by Amos 2002: 13).
Were the Arab states ready for peace after 1967?--- Yes.
● King Hussein began negotiations with Israel in 1970 and was ready to trade peace if
“Israel withdrew from much of the West Bank as well as from East Jerusalem and if the
Muslim and Christian holy places in the Old City were restored to Jordan” (Amos 2002:
11).
● Egypt, Syria, and Jordan never received offers of peace from Israel that were supposed to by conveyed via the United States. According to these offers, Israel would return the Sinai Desert to Egypt, the Golan Heights to Syria, negotiate with Jordan over the Eastern
border in exchange for peace. (This is a highly controversial point.)
● Egypt and Jordan accepted UN Resolution 242 which called for Israeli withdrawal from
occupied territories in exchange for peace--- that is, recognition of the state of Israel and
an end to belligerency.
Were the Arab states ready for peace after 1967?--- No.
● Jews were persecuted and expelled from Arab states notably in Egypt, Yemen, Lebanon,
Tunisia, Morocco, and Iraq.
From Myths and Facts by Mitchell G. Bard, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf7.html#e
MYTH
“The Arab states and the PLO accepted Resolution 242 whereas Israel rejected it.”
FACT
The Arab states have traditionally said they accepted 242 as defined by them, that is, as requiring Israel's total, unconditional withdrawal from the occupied territories.
In a statement to the General Assembly October 15, 1968, the PLO, rejecting Resolution 242, said "the implementation of said resolution will lead to the loss of every hope for the establishment of peace and security in Palestine and the Middle East region."
By contrast, Ambassador Abba Eban expressed Israel's position to the Security Council on May 1, 1968: "My government has indicated its acceptance of the Security Council resolution for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace. I am also authorized to reaffirm that we are willing to seek agreement with each Arab State on all matters included in that resolution." It took nearly a quarter century, but the PLO finally agreed that Resolutions 242 and 338 should be the basis for negotiations with Israel when it signed the Declaration of Principles in September 1993.
MYTH
“The Palestinians were willing to negotiate a settlement after the Six-Day War.”
FACT
The Arab League created the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in Cairo in 1964 as a weapon against Israel. Until the Six-Day War, the PLO engaged in terrorist attacks that contributed to the momentum toward conflict. Neither the PLO nor any other Palestinian groups campaigned for Jordan or Egypt to create an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. The focus of Palestinian activism was on the destruction of Israel. After the Arab states were defeated in 1967, the Palestinians did not alter their basic objective. With one million Arabs coming under Israeli rule, some Palestinians believed the prospect for waging a popular war of liberation had grown. Toward that end, Yasser Arafat instigated a campaign of terror from the West Bank. During September-December 1967, 61 attacks were launched, most against civilian targets such as factories, movie theaters and private homes. Israeli security forces gradually became more effective in thwarting terrorist plans inside Israel and the territories. Consequently, the PLO began to pursue a different strategy — attacking Jews and Israeli targets abroad. In early 1968, the first of many aircraft was hijacked by Palestinian terrorists.
What do we know about the Six Day/June War?
● Israel attacked first on June 5, 1967, attacking the Egyptian air force.
● Israel termed the attack “pre-emptive” in response to what they deemed an imminent
attack by Arab military forces including forces from Egypt, Syria, Jordan with less
substantial troop contributions from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria.
● Egypt had amassed more than 100,000 troops in the Sinai as well as expelled UN
peacekeepers and closed the Straits of Tiran prior to Israel’s attack.
● Syria’s army was amassed in the Golan Heights on their border with Israel.
● Jordan (reluctantly) amassed forces in the West Bank which they had occupied since 1948.
● Israel easily won the war in 6 days, claiming the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Desert (from
Egypt), the West Bank and Jerusalem (from Jordan), and the Golan Heights (from Syria).
● Israel latter “traded” the Sinai Desert “for peace” with Egypt but annexed the Golan
Heights and Jerusalem and continue to occupy the West Bank and the Gaza Strip—
though the occupation of the Gaza Strip is to a lesser degree than the occupation of the
West Bank.
● On September 1, 1967, the Arab League met in Khartoum, Sudan and passed the
Khartoum Resolution which stated “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no
negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own
country” (Article 3).
● Israel has long sided the Khartoum Resolution as evidence that there is no one of the
Arab side with which to negotiate.
● Egyptian President, Anwar Sadat, broke with the Khartoum Resolution when he visited
Jerusalem (November 1977) and subsequently signed the Camp David Accords in 1978 which “traded land for peace”--- in this case, the Sinai Desert was returned to Egypt in exchange for peace with Israel. In addition, Israeli ships were granted passage through the Suez canal and the Strait of Tiran, the Gulf of Aqaba and the Taba—Rafah straits were recognized as
international waterways.
Was Israel ready for peace after 1967?--- Yes.
From Myths and Facts by Mitchell G. Bard, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf7.html#e
MYTH
“After the 1967 war, Israel refused to negotiate a settlement with the Arabs.”
FACT
After its victory in the Six-Day War, Israel hoped the Arab states would enter peace negotiations. Israel signaled to the Arab states its willingness to relinquish virtually all the territories it acquired in exchange for peace. As Moshe Dayan put it, Jerusalem was waiting only for a telephone call from Arab leaders to start negotiations. But these hopes were dashed in August 1967 when Arab leaders meeting in Khartoum adopted a formula of three noes: "no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel...." As former Israeli President Chaim Herzog wrote: "Israel's belief that the war had come to an end and that peace would now reign along the borders was soon dispelled. Three weeks after the conclusion of hostilities, the first major incident occurred on the Suez Canal."
Was Israel ready for peace after 1967?--- No.
From Elon, Amos (2002), “Israelis and Palestinians: What Went Wrong” The New York Times Review of Books, December 19, 2002, Accessed 14 April 2010, Available at http://www94.homepage.villanova.edu/peter.knapp/What%20went%20wrong.pdf.
● Israel immediately sought to settle, colonize and annex parts of the West Bank, the Gaza
Strip and the Golan Heights.
● Israel never had any intention of ceding the Gaza Strip and the West Bank for peace.
● Israel’s victory had humiliated Soviet allies, thus the U.S. was not interested in a peaceful
resolution of the conflict.
● Israel believed it held a far superior position to the Arab states and thus were determined
to hold their ground until the Arabs gave in.
● Israel was unwilling to cede any part of Jerusalem to Jordan in exchange for peace.
● According to Michael Ben Yair, Israel's attorney general in the Rabin government, “The
Six-Day War was forced on us; but the war's Seventh day, which began on June 12,
1967—continues to this day and is the product of our choice. We enthusiastically chose
to become a colonialist society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands,
transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding
justifications for all this.” (cited by Amos 2002: 13).
Were the Arab states ready for peace after 1967?--- Yes.
● King Hussein began negotiations with Israel in 1970 and was ready to trade peace if
“Israel withdrew from much of the West Bank as well as from East Jerusalem and if the
Muslim and Christian holy places in the Old City were restored to Jordan” (Amos 2002:
11).
● Egypt, Syria, and Jordan never received offers of peace from Israel that were supposed to by conveyed via the United States. According to these offers, Israel would return the Sinai Desert to Egypt, the Golan Heights to Syria, negotiate with Jordan over the Eastern
border in exchange for peace. (This is a highly controversial point.)
● Egypt and Jordan accepted UN Resolution 242 which called for Israeli withdrawal from
occupied territories in exchange for peace--- that is, recognition of the state of Israel and
an end to belligerency.
Were the Arab states ready for peace after 1967?--- No.
● Jews were persecuted and expelled from Arab states notably in Egypt, Yemen, Lebanon,
Tunisia, Morocco, and Iraq.
From Myths and Facts by Mitchell G. Bard, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf7.html#e
MYTH
“The Arab states and the PLO accepted Resolution 242 whereas Israel rejected it.”
FACT
The Arab states have traditionally said they accepted 242 as defined by them, that is, as requiring Israel's total, unconditional withdrawal from the occupied territories.
In a statement to the General Assembly October 15, 1968, the PLO, rejecting Resolution 242, said "the implementation of said resolution will lead to the loss of every hope for the establishment of peace and security in Palestine and the Middle East region."
By contrast, Ambassador Abba Eban expressed Israel's position to the Security Council on May 1, 1968: "My government has indicated its acceptance of the Security Council resolution for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace. I am also authorized to reaffirm that we are willing to seek agreement with each Arab State on all matters included in that resolution." It took nearly a quarter century, but the PLO finally agreed that Resolutions 242 and 338 should be the basis for negotiations with Israel when it signed the Declaration of Principles in September 1993.
MYTH
“The Palestinians were willing to negotiate a settlement after the Six-Day War.”
FACT
The Arab League created the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in Cairo in 1964 as a weapon against Israel. Until the Six-Day War, the PLO engaged in terrorist attacks that contributed to the momentum toward conflict. Neither the PLO nor any other Palestinian groups campaigned for Jordan or Egypt to create an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. The focus of Palestinian activism was on the destruction of Israel. After the Arab states were defeated in 1967, the Palestinians did not alter their basic objective. With one million Arabs coming under Israeli rule, some Palestinians believed the prospect for waging a popular war of liberation had grown. Toward that end, Yasser Arafat instigated a campaign of terror from the West Bank. During September-December 1967, 61 attacks were launched, most against civilian targets such as factories, movie theaters and private homes. Israeli security forces gradually became more effective in thwarting terrorist plans inside Israel and the territories. Consequently, the PLO began to pursue a different strategy — attacking Jews and Israeli targets abroad. In early 1968, the first of many aircraft was hijacked by Palestinian terrorists.
Exercise #1: What are the Historical Facts?
This is what I prepared for the exercise...
Overarching Questions
● How can we judge the validity of historical accounts?
A. Can scientific conclusions be reached through analysis of declassified Israeli documents and little to no analysis of classified Arab documents?
B. Are eye-witness accounts trustworthy?
C. Is analysis based on primary or secondary source material?
D. Is there a boundary between historical writing and journalistic writing as claimed by Shapira?
● As social scientists, how should we critically evaluate each researcher’s contribution?
A. We should try to determine their political bias as well as whether they have analyzed and/or presented edited versions of historical documents. (Khalidi claims that the Kimche brothers only published excerpts of Plan D.) We should also attempt to replicate their conclusions through rigorous analysis. (A scientific conclusion is not valid unless it can be replicated.)
Palestinian Refugees
● What do historians claim to be the cause of the Palestinian refugee problem?
A. Arab evacuation orders
B. Systematic ethnic cleansing via Plan Daled
C. Israeli initiated whisper campaign
D. The Dar Yassin massacre (April 1948)
E. Israeli evacuation broadcasts
F. Collusion between Israel and Trans-Jordan
● Where do the historians disagree/ agree?
Areas of disagreement:
A. The occurrence and/or significance of Arab evacuation orders
a. Jon and David Kimche: the Arabs issued evacuation orders to ethnic Arabs so that they could “push the Jews into the sea.”
b. Walid Khalidi: Arab evacuation orders are a ‘red herring’ (Khalidi, 1988:5).
c. Morris: There is no evidence of evacuation orders.
d. According to Khalidi, Morris does not recognize the connection between the “expulsion” of the Arab population and Plan Daled (Khalidi, 1988:5).
e. According to Khalidi, Morris contends that fleeing Palestinians “brought permanent exile upon themselves” (Khalidi, 1988:6).
f. According to Khalidi, Morris argues that the expulsion of the Arab population and the destruction of “abandoned” villages was not planned by the Israeli government but extemporaneous. (Khalidi, 1988:6).
g. Khalidi claims that there is no evidence of Arab evacuation orders in the back files of the British (BBC) and American monitoring stations in the Near East (Khalidi, 1988:6).
h. Upon scrutinizing the BBC monitoring station back files, Khalidi found that “not only was there no hint of any Arab evacuation order, but the Arab radio stations had urged the Palestinians to hold on and be steadfast whereas it was the Jewish radio stations of the Haganah and the Irgun and Stern Gang which had been engaged in incessant and strident psychological warfare against the Arab civilian population” (Khalidi, 1988:6).
i. Childers reached the same conclusion (above) about the lack of Arab evacuation orders (Khalidi, 1988:6).
j. Arab war aims (Shlaim 1995:299).
B. The defensive/ offensive nature of Plan Daled
C. Planned ethnic cleansing
Areas of agreement:
A. Palestinians did flee en mass during the War of 1948.
B. Plan Daled exists.
C. All of the Arab states, except Jordan, rejected the U.N. Partition Plan (Shlaim 1995:299).
D. Seven Arab armies invaded Palestine on May 15, 1948 (Shlaim 1995:299).
Plan Daled
● What do we know about Plan Daled?
A. It was written by the Jewish underground army, the Hagannah, the predecessor of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in 1947.
B. The plan was revised in December 1947 and March 1948.
C. It was drafted as a “defensive” plan to ward off Arab invasion into “the borders of the Hebrew state” (Assignment of Duties, (f) ).
D. It contained language that authorized the “destruction of (Arab) villages…especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously.”
E. It prescribed actions “in the event of resistance” including the “destruction of villages” and the expulsion of the Arab population “outside the borders of the state” (Assignment of Duties, (b) 4).
F. Plan Daled also stated that “enemy cities” must be besieged through attack of transportation arteries and the disruption of “vital services, such as electricity, water, and fuel…” (Assignment of Duties, (e) 1 and 3).
● How is Plan Daled related to the Palestinianization of the conflict?
A. Plan Daled has been interpreted as a plan of ethnic cleansing.
B. Plan Daled has also been interpreted as targeting civilians.
● How is Plan Daled related to Israeli and/or Palestinian societies?
Israeli society
A. Khalidi claims “that the Zionist emphasis on Arab evacuation orders is in fact a skillful propaganda tactic with manifold purposes: it shifts the moral responsibility for the refugees on the Arabs themselves, puts them on the defensive, and shoulders them with the burden of refutation. Above all it directs the attention from the primary of the derivative: from the actual course of events in 1948 in Palestine to the realm of patience-consuming allegation and counter-allegation” (Khalidi, 1988:9).
B. Also according to Khalidi, “the ideological premises of Plan D are to be found in the very concept of Zionism” (Khalidi, 1988:9). That is, Zionists were in search of a land that they could call their own. If the Zionists had to dispel the indigenous population of the land they sought, it was a lesser even that perpetuation of the Jewish problem (Khalidi, 1988:9). Herzl, one of the founding fathers of Zionism, supported the expulsion of the indigenous population of land claimed for the Jews.
C. Land was needed to accommodate large scale Jewish immigration to the newly established stated of Israel (Khalidi, 1988:12-13).
Palestinian society
A. Plan D reinforces the premise that the Zionists intended to create a Jewish majority in Palestine via the transfer of ethnic Arab inhabitants.
B. Plan D is evidence of the Zionists’ master plan.
● How is Plan Daled related to negotiations and conflict resolution attempts?
A. The Palestinian “right of return” is one of the biggest obstacles to the creation of a lasting peace.
B. The Palestinians claim an unconditional “right of return” while Israelis are unwilling to allow for the return of the Palestinian population because Arabs would then constitute the ethnic majority in Israel.
● How is Plan Daled related to the first and/or second intifadas?
Plan C
“K (3). The operations mentioned in 1 above will be carried out by damaging the service stations along that route, or by sabotaging its vehicles, or by stopping one or more vehicles on the road, evacuating the passengers, and destroying them.”
“Q. Propaganda will have a large effect on the extent to which incidents are publicized and on the deterrent value this will have on the Arab masses. Therefore, an extensive propaganda network must be organized by the following means:
1. Radio.
2. Leaflets.
3. Whispering campaigns diffused by Arabs or Arabists.
Each of our countermeasures should be widely publicized and reverberate in every Arab village.”
Overarching Questions
● How can we judge the validity of historical accounts?
A. Can scientific conclusions be reached through analysis of declassified Israeli documents and little to no analysis of classified Arab documents?
B. Are eye-witness accounts trustworthy?
C. Is analysis based on primary or secondary source material?
D. Is there a boundary between historical writing and journalistic writing as claimed by Shapira?
● As social scientists, how should we critically evaluate each researcher’s contribution?
A. We should try to determine their political bias as well as whether they have analyzed and/or presented edited versions of historical documents. (Khalidi claims that the Kimche brothers only published excerpts of Plan D.) We should also attempt to replicate their conclusions through rigorous analysis. (A scientific conclusion is not valid unless it can be replicated.)
Palestinian Refugees
● What do historians claim to be the cause of the Palestinian refugee problem?
A. Arab evacuation orders
B. Systematic ethnic cleansing via Plan Daled
C. Israeli initiated whisper campaign
D. The Dar Yassin massacre (April 1948)
E. Israeli evacuation broadcasts
F. Collusion between Israel and Trans-Jordan
● Where do the historians disagree/ agree?
Areas of disagreement:
A. The occurrence and/or significance of Arab evacuation orders
a. Jon and David Kimche: the Arabs issued evacuation orders to ethnic Arabs so that they could “push the Jews into the sea.”
b. Walid Khalidi: Arab evacuation orders are a ‘red herring’ (Khalidi, 1988:5).
c. Morris: There is no evidence of evacuation orders.
d. According to Khalidi, Morris does not recognize the connection between the “expulsion” of the Arab population and Plan Daled (Khalidi, 1988:5).
e. According to Khalidi, Morris contends that fleeing Palestinians “brought permanent exile upon themselves” (Khalidi, 1988:6).
f. According to Khalidi, Morris argues that the expulsion of the Arab population and the destruction of “abandoned” villages was not planned by the Israeli government but extemporaneous. (Khalidi, 1988:6).
g. Khalidi claims that there is no evidence of Arab evacuation orders in the back files of the British (BBC) and American monitoring stations in the Near East (Khalidi, 1988:6).
h. Upon scrutinizing the BBC monitoring station back files, Khalidi found that “not only was there no hint of any Arab evacuation order, but the Arab radio stations had urged the Palestinians to hold on and be steadfast whereas it was the Jewish radio stations of the Haganah and the Irgun and Stern Gang which had been engaged in incessant and strident psychological warfare against the Arab civilian population” (Khalidi, 1988:6).
i. Childers reached the same conclusion (above) about the lack of Arab evacuation orders (Khalidi, 1988:6).
j. Arab war aims (Shlaim 1995:299).
B. The defensive/ offensive nature of Plan Daled
C. Planned ethnic cleansing
Areas of agreement:
A. Palestinians did flee en mass during the War of 1948.
B. Plan Daled exists.
C. All of the Arab states, except Jordan, rejected the U.N. Partition Plan (Shlaim 1995:299).
D. Seven Arab armies invaded Palestine on May 15, 1948 (Shlaim 1995:299).
Plan Daled
● What do we know about Plan Daled?
A. It was written by the Jewish underground army, the Hagannah, the predecessor of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in 1947.
B. The plan was revised in December 1947 and March 1948.
C. It was drafted as a “defensive” plan to ward off Arab invasion into “the borders of the Hebrew state” (Assignment of Duties, (f) ).
D. It contained language that authorized the “destruction of (Arab) villages…especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously.”
E. It prescribed actions “in the event of resistance” including the “destruction of villages” and the expulsion of the Arab population “outside the borders of the state” (Assignment of Duties, (b) 4).
F. Plan Daled also stated that “enemy cities” must be besieged through attack of transportation arteries and the disruption of “vital services, such as electricity, water, and fuel…” (Assignment of Duties, (e) 1 and 3).
● How is Plan Daled related to the Palestinianization of the conflict?
A. Plan Daled has been interpreted as a plan of ethnic cleansing.
B. Plan Daled has also been interpreted as targeting civilians.
● How is Plan Daled related to Israeli and/or Palestinian societies?
Israeli society
A. Khalidi claims “that the Zionist emphasis on Arab evacuation orders is in fact a skillful propaganda tactic with manifold purposes: it shifts the moral responsibility for the refugees on the Arabs themselves, puts them on the defensive, and shoulders them with the burden of refutation. Above all it directs the attention from the primary of the derivative: from the actual course of events in 1948 in Palestine to the realm of patience-consuming allegation and counter-allegation” (Khalidi, 1988:9).
B. Also according to Khalidi, “the ideological premises of Plan D are to be found in the very concept of Zionism” (Khalidi, 1988:9). That is, Zionists were in search of a land that they could call their own. If the Zionists had to dispel the indigenous population of the land they sought, it was a lesser even that perpetuation of the Jewish problem (Khalidi, 1988:9). Herzl, one of the founding fathers of Zionism, supported the expulsion of the indigenous population of land claimed for the Jews.
C. Land was needed to accommodate large scale Jewish immigration to the newly established stated of Israel (Khalidi, 1988:12-13).
Palestinian society
A. Plan D reinforces the premise that the Zionists intended to create a Jewish majority in Palestine via the transfer of ethnic Arab inhabitants.
B. Plan D is evidence of the Zionists’ master plan.
● How is Plan Daled related to negotiations and conflict resolution attempts?
A. The Palestinian “right of return” is one of the biggest obstacles to the creation of a lasting peace.
B. The Palestinians claim an unconditional “right of return” while Israelis are unwilling to allow for the return of the Palestinian population because Arabs would then constitute the ethnic majority in Israel.
● How is Plan Daled related to the first and/or second intifadas?
Plan C
“K (3). The operations mentioned in 1 above will be carried out by damaging the service stations along that route, or by sabotaging its vehicles, or by stopping one or more vehicles on the road, evacuating the passengers, and destroying them.”
“Q. Propaganda will have a large effect on the extent to which incidents are publicized and on the deterrent value this will have on the Arab masses. Therefore, an extensive propaganda network must be organized by the following means:
1. Radio.
2. Leaflets.
3. Whispering campaigns diffused by Arabs or Arabists.
Each of our countermeasures should be widely publicized and reverberate in every Arab village.”
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Lecture #14: Renewed Violence and Missed Opportunities
Michael Schulz
The following notes are based on a powerpoint presentation. I assume the presentation will be posted at http://kursportal.student.gu.se/inst/S2GLS%7C_%7CNONE/RS2235/filuppladdning/browse2.php?dir=Kursmoment%2FLecture+notes+and+ppt
in the near future.
Negotiations Preceding and During the Al Aqsa Intifada
The al Aqsa intifada erupted in September 2000. But even as the bloodiest of two popular uprisings continued to claim lives on the streets of Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank, peace agreements were sought by top level officials.
Camp David, 2000
- After approximately one hundred years of conflict, this was the first time top level leaders met to discuss key issues.
-Arafat was blamed for the breakdown of negotiations.
Taba
- At this point, there was little to no public support for a peace treaty.
- Barak withdraws from negotitations because his mandate is coming to an end.
- The Israeli public wanted the government to get tough on the occupied territories and thus elected Sharon.
The Conflict Escalates
- The conflict reached a level of violence not experienced since the 1930s.
- All Palestinian groups participated in the al Aqsa intifada.
- Some viewed the uprising as a criticism of the PLO.
Israel and Southern Lebanon
- Israel unilaterally withdraws from southern Lebanon in 2000 and Hezbollah takes over.
- Hezbollah emerged during Israel's war with Lebanon (1982-1985).
- Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 is viewed as a humilitation in Israeli society.
Oslo II, 1995
- Areas A, B, and C established
- More and more checkpoints
- Palestinian movement is severely limited.
- As a result, Hamas initiates suicide attacks
Israel's Response to the al Aqsa Intitifada
- The al Aqsa intifada is marked by increasing confrontration.
- Israel pressures Arafat to control all Palestinian groups including terrorists.
- Israel initiates the "security wall".
● This was previously unthinkable.
● The goal was to isolate Arafat and stop suicide bombers.
The Process After 2001
- Arafat put under house arrest in Ramallah.
- Israel invades the West Bank.
- In August 2005, Israel withdraws unilaterally from the Gaza Strip and evacuates all settlers.
- Sharon views Araft as the "big problem" and a primarily obstacle toward resolution of the conflict.
- In 2002, the Arab League offers Israel a peace plan.
● This peace plan was initiated by the King of Saudi Arabia.
● Israel almost completely ignored the proposal.
- U.S. President George W. Bush endorses a two state solution.
● This is significant because no previous U.S. president had done so.
● Although there was global support for a two state solution after Oslo, Rabin never stated that the Oslo Peace Process would result in a two state solution. However, a majority of Israelis believed this would be the outcome.
- Hamas initiates a cease-fire agreement to end the al Aqsa intifada.
- In November 2004, Arafat dies and this transforms the situation on both sides.
- In January 2005, Abbas becomes President as well as chairman of Fatah and the PLO.
- Abbas did not want Hamas to join the PLO.
- Palestinian municipal elections are held in 2005.
● Hamas participates and de facto recognizes the Oslo Peace Process.
- National elections are held in January 2005 and Hamas wins a majority of seats.
● Hamas' platform is change and reform.
● The West boycotts Hamas.
● Israeli society is shocked by the election of a "terrorist" organization.
● The Israeli left feels betrayed and disappointed.
● This was a turning point in Palestinian democratic development.But, unfortunately, Fatah could not accept the results of the election and a Fatah Hamas power struggle ensued.
● Hamas forms a government and even considers acknowledging Israel's right to exist. However, Hamas efforts were stymied by international isolation and condemnation.
- Violence continues to escalate until the Saudi's come into the picture in Spring 2007.
● This was a great oppotunity but was, ultimately, yet another missed opportunity.
● A joint government was briefly formed in Gaza and the West Bank but, soon, negotiations broke down and intra-Palestinian violence escalated.
● As a result, two governments emerge with Fatah controling the West Bank and Hamas in charge of the Gaza Strip.
● An internal rift between Fatah and Hamas persists to this day.
- The Separation Fence in April 2007
● The fence made Israelis feel more secure and less vulnerable to suicide attacks while it made Palestinians feel more isolated.
● The fence creates a lot of problems for Palestinian society. Students are separated from schools, families are separated from eachother, farmers are separated from their lands, etc.
- Paradox: It is becoming increasingly difficult for people to meet but Track I negotiations continue to occur.
Hamas
- Ahmad Yasin (1936-2004) is viewed as the founder of the movement.
- Yasin is assassinated in 2004 along with many other top Hamas leaders.
- Hamas is comprised of a social branch, a military branch, and an intelligence section.
- The political structure is democratic with a Shura council.
- The identity of Hamas leaders is often veiled in secrecy however, Khaled Mishal is known to have served as the chair.
- Within the political structure there is an increasing rift between insiders residing in Gaza and outsiders. There is also a rift between hardliners and moderates.
- Hamas doesn't see democracy as conflicting with Islam.
● This illustrates how democracy is a global phenomenon with diverse local interpretations and forms of implementation.
- Hamas' 1988 charter is often quoted as evidence of the group's violent intents.
- Article 9 and 10
● "The rights of our people" are paramount but signed agreement can be honored.
- In 2007, Hamas states that they agree with the Beirut Position from 2002 which means that they are prepared to make a truce with Israel in exchange for land. However, many Israelis believe this is merely a tactical move rather than a genuine gesture toward peace.
The Gaza War (December 27, 2008- January 19, 2009)
- Violence erupts after Hamas takes control of the Gaza Strip in 2007.
- In September 2007, Israel declares Gaza as a war zone and initiates a naval blockade.
- A truce is declared but ends on December 18, 2008. This is when Hamas starts to fire Qassem rockets into southern Israel.
● As a result, Israel invades and launches a major military operation called Operation Cast Lead.
- Internationally, fear mounts that Syria, Hezbollah, and Jordan might enter the war.
- Hamas may have won the war "militarily" but many Palestinians blame them for heavy causalties suffered during the conflict.
Potentials for Peace
- The Olmert Plan: land swaps to accomodate Israeli settlements. This plan is acceptable to most Palestinians.
- Even the division of the Old City of Jerusalem has gained support within Palestinian society.
- Paradox: While more and more technical solutions are being proposed, peace remains ellusive
- Today, both sides continue to distrust eachother.
- Continued disagreements persist between Fatah and Hamas which is disappointing to many Palestinians some of whom do not support either party.
- Hamas is not against non-violence per se but finds it an inefficient method.
- "The Third Wave" is a Palestinian group that supports secular, non-violent resistance and is gaining support.
- The most complicated issue that is still unresolved is "The Right of Return".
● Although there was a figure on the table at Camp David, it was not accepted by Arafat.
- Although most Palestinians view "The Right of Return" as individual right, if Fatah and Hamas work together on this issue a compromise could be reached.
- Schulz contends that the refugee issue should be tabled until other, less controversial issues are resolved beginning with Jerusalem.
- There is a global consensus on a two state solution and peace principles but a deal has not been reached and civil society is becoming increasingly radicalized.
- Possible avenues for peace include:
● civil society
● Track II negotiations (Of course, this is difficult because the EU and the US have labeled Hamas as a terroritst organization.)
***It is important to note that Fatah never abadoned the use of violence. So, in this respect, there is no philosophical difference between Fatah and Hamas.***
The following notes are based on a powerpoint presentation. I assume the presentation will be posted at http://kursportal.student.gu.se/inst/S2GLS%7C_%7CNONE/RS2235/filuppladdning/browse2.php?dir=Kursmoment%2FLecture+notes+and+ppt
in the near future.
Negotiations Preceding and During the Al Aqsa Intifada
The al Aqsa intifada erupted in September 2000. But even as the bloodiest of two popular uprisings continued to claim lives on the streets of Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank, peace agreements were sought by top level officials.
Camp David, 2000
- After approximately one hundred years of conflict, this was the first time top level leaders met to discuss key issues.
-Arafat was blamed for the breakdown of negotiations.
Taba
- At this point, there was little to no public support for a peace treaty.
- Barak withdraws from negotitations because his mandate is coming to an end.
- The Israeli public wanted the government to get tough on the occupied territories and thus elected Sharon.
The Conflict Escalates
- The conflict reached a level of violence not experienced since the 1930s.
- All Palestinian groups participated in the al Aqsa intifada.
- Some viewed the uprising as a criticism of the PLO.
Israel and Southern Lebanon
- Israel unilaterally withdraws from southern Lebanon in 2000 and Hezbollah takes over.
- Hezbollah emerged during Israel's war with Lebanon (1982-1985).
- Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 is viewed as a humilitation in Israeli society.
Oslo II, 1995
- Areas A, B, and C established
- More and more checkpoints
- Palestinian movement is severely limited.
- As a result, Hamas initiates suicide attacks
Israel's Response to the al Aqsa Intitifada
- The al Aqsa intifada is marked by increasing confrontration.
- Israel pressures Arafat to control all Palestinian groups including terrorists.
- Israel initiates the "security wall".
● This was previously unthinkable.
● The goal was to isolate Arafat and stop suicide bombers.
The Process After 2001
- Arafat put under house arrest in Ramallah.
- Israel invades the West Bank.
- In August 2005, Israel withdraws unilaterally from the Gaza Strip and evacuates all settlers.
- Sharon views Araft as the "big problem" and a primarily obstacle toward resolution of the conflict.
- In 2002, the Arab League offers Israel a peace plan.
● This peace plan was initiated by the King of Saudi Arabia.
● Israel almost completely ignored the proposal.
- U.S. President George W. Bush endorses a two state solution.
● This is significant because no previous U.S. president had done so.
● Although there was global support for a two state solution after Oslo, Rabin never stated that the Oslo Peace Process would result in a two state solution. However, a majority of Israelis believed this would be the outcome.
- Hamas initiates a cease-fire agreement to end the al Aqsa intifada.
- In November 2004, Arafat dies and this transforms the situation on both sides.
- In January 2005, Abbas becomes President as well as chairman of Fatah and the PLO.
- Abbas did not want Hamas to join the PLO.
- Palestinian municipal elections are held in 2005.
● Hamas participates and de facto recognizes the Oslo Peace Process.
- National elections are held in January 2005 and Hamas wins a majority of seats.
● Hamas' platform is change and reform.
● The West boycotts Hamas.
● Israeli society is shocked by the election of a "terrorist" organization.
● The Israeli left feels betrayed and disappointed.
● This was a turning point in Palestinian democratic development.But, unfortunately, Fatah could not accept the results of the election and a Fatah Hamas power struggle ensued.
● Hamas forms a government and even considers acknowledging Israel's right to exist. However, Hamas efforts were stymied by international isolation and condemnation.
- Violence continues to escalate until the Saudi's come into the picture in Spring 2007.
● This was a great oppotunity but was, ultimately, yet another missed opportunity.
● A joint government was briefly formed in Gaza and the West Bank but, soon, negotiations broke down and intra-Palestinian violence escalated.
● As a result, two governments emerge with Fatah controling the West Bank and Hamas in charge of the Gaza Strip.
● An internal rift between Fatah and Hamas persists to this day.
- The Separation Fence in April 2007
● The fence made Israelis feel more secure and less vulnerable to suicide attacks while it made Palestinians feel more isolated.
● The fence creates a lot of problems for Palestinian society. Students are separated from schools, families are separated from eachother, farmers are separated from their lands, etc.
- Paradox: It is becoming increasingly difficult for people to meet but Track I negotiations continue to occur.
Hamas
- Ahmad Yasin (1936-2004) is viewed as the founder of the movement.
- Yasin is assassinated in 2004 along with many other top Hamas leaders.
- Hamas is comprised of a social branch, a military branch, and an intelligence section.
- The political structure is democratic with a Shura council.
- The identity of Hamas leaders is often veiled in secrecy however, Khaled Mishal is known to have served as the chair.
- Within the political structure there is an increasing rift between insiders residing in Gaza and outsiders. There is also a rift between hardliners and moderates.
- Hamas doesn't see democracy as conflicting with Islam.
● This illustrates how democracy is a global phenomenon with diverse local interpretations and forms of implementation.
- Hamas' 1988 charter is often quoted as evidence of the group's violent intents.
- Article 9 and 10
● "The rights of our people" are paramount but signed agreement can be honored.
- In 2007, Hamas states that they agree with the Beirut Position from 2002 which means that they are prepared to make a truce with Israel in exchange for land. However, many Israelis believe this is merely a tactical move rather than a genuine gesture toward peace.
The Gaza War (December 27, 2008- January 19, 2009)
- Violence erupts after Hamas takes control of the Gaza Strip in 2007.
- In September 2007, Israel declares Gaza as a war zone and initiates a naval blockade.
- A truce is declared but ends on December 18, 2008. This is when Hamas starts to fire Qassem rockets into southern Israel.
● As a result, Israel invades and launches a major military operation called Operation Cast Lead.
- Internationally, fear mounts that Syria, Hezbollah, and Jordan might enter the war.
- Hamas may have won the war "militarily" but many Palestinians blame them for heavy causalties suffered during the conflict.
Potentials for Peace
- The Olmert Plan: land swaps to accomodate Israeli settlements. This plan is acceptable to most Palestinians.
- Even the division of the Old City of Jerusalem has gained support within Palestinian society.
- Paradox: While more and more technical solutions are being proposed, peace remains ellusive
- Today, both sides continue to distrust eachother.
- Continued disagreements persist between Fatah and Hamas which is disappointing to many Palestinians some of whom do not support either party.
- Hamas is not against non-violence per se but finds it an inefficient method.
- "The Third Wave" is a Palestinian group that supports secular, non-violent resistance and is gaining support.
- The most complicated issue that is still unresolved is "The Right of Return".
● Although there was a figure on the table at Camp David, it was not accepted by Arafat.
- Although most Palestinians view "The Right of Return" as individual right, if Fatah and Hamas work together on this issue a compromise could be reached.
- Schulz contends that the refugee issue should be tabled until other, less controversial issues are resolved beginning with Jerusalem.
- There is a global consensus on a two state solution and peace principles but a deal has not been reached and civil society is becoming increasingly radicalized.
- Possible avenues for peace include:
● civil society
● Track II negotiations (Of course, this is difficult because the EU and the US have labeled Hamas as a terroritst organization.)
***It is important to note that Fatah never abadoned the use of violence. So, in this respect, there is no philosophical difference between Fatah and Hamas.***
Friday, April 16, 2010
Lecture #13: The Use and Meaning of Violence
Nina Gren, Social Anthropology
Please see powerpoint posted entitled, "MAViolence2010Isr-Pal.pdf" posted at:
http://kursportal.student.gu.se/inst/S2GLS%7C_%7CNONE/RS2235/filuppladdning/browse2.php?dir=Kursmoment%2FLecture+notes+and+ppt
Please see powerpoint posted entitled, "MAViolence2010Isr-Pal.pdf" posted at:
http://kursportal.student.gu.se/inst/S2GLS%7C_%7CNONE/RS2235/filuppladdning/browse2.php?dir=Kursmoment%2FLecture+notes+and+ppt
Lecture #12: Negotiations: from 1990-2002
Michael Schulz
Please see powerpoint posted at:
http://kursportal.student.gu.se/inst/S2GLS%7C_%7CNONE/RS2235/filuppladdning/browse2.php?dir=Kursmoment%2FLecture+notes+and+ppt
Opening Note
- In previous lectures, we discussed the first intifada and its impact on society and desires for peace.
- Today, we will begin with the 1990s when parties were closest to peace.
- Today, we will also lift forward some Track II concepts and take about why parties have lost faith in the Track II approach.
1990-1991
- The Cold War was over and a new geopolitical order emerged.
- The Gulf War
- 1991, Madrid Conference
● Bilateral talks occur per the wishes of the Israeli government with the goal of finding a political solution.
● Multilateral talks occur per the wishes of the Arab governments with the goal of discussing major issues including the refugee problem, water, etc. These issues concerned all parties.
● Israel, Likud government: "Facts on the ground"
● Shamir: I will negotiate toughly and pursue "facts on the ground"
● Unfortunately, Shamir was not ready for peace and was, at best, willing to give Palestinians limited autonmy which he and Rabin has offered Palestinians in 1989.
● The concept of "Gaza First" was first presented at the Madrid Conference. Gaza was a big problem for the Israelis due to its high population density, it was the place that the first intifada erupted, it had/ has high unemployment, and Israel was dependent upon day labor from its residents.
● Ultimately, the negotiated were stalled and no Israeli-Palestinian deal was reached.
The Early 1990s
- Shamir wanted to build settlements in the West Bank to accomodate immigrants from the former USSR.
- However, these immigrants were not willing to live in a conflict zone.
- The US repsonded critically to plans for further settlement.
- In 1992, the election went to Rabin.
- In 1992, Rabin had a direct confrontation with Hamas (a newly emerging political force)
● A young Israeli girl was killed.
● Rabin sent Hamas leaders to southern Lebanon.
● Sending leaders to southern Lebanon was a grave error because Hamas leaders were trained in suicide bombing techniques by Hezbollah.
- After his election, Rabin pursued peace with Syria.
● Rabin asked a US mediator to offer Syria the Golan Heights but it didn't work due to a miscommunication. As a result, Israel did not believe that the US was a serious broker.
- Rabin also pursued negotiations with Palestinians.
Oslo Negotiations
- These negotiations were conducted in secret on a small scale with Track II participants.
- One of the principle aims was the breakdown of enemy images.
- Gaza First was proposed at the beginning of negotiations.
- Rabin did not know about Oslo.
● He was initially furious when he learned about the secret negotiations but he soon realized that it was the only viable track left.
Oslo, Declaration of Principles
- Symbolic recognition
- Self-rule during the interim period
- Time schedule of five years with 1999 as the deadline for a final peace agreement
- Difficult issues (such as Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security, borders, etc.) should be solved later.
-Arafat made too many demands, stifling the process.
- However, both sides agreed to recognize each other as enemies which was significant.
Gaza/ Jeriko "First"
- Gaza/ Jeriko "first", May 1994
- Limited self rule of people not land
- Some sectors
- Palestinian Authority established
- Arafat and the PLO to Gaza, July 1994
- Palestinians allowed to establish a police force which was not a military but resembled one.
The Process
- There was strong grassroots support on both sides.
- But there was also strong and loud opposition/ religious inspired nationalists.
- Hebron Massacre, February 1994
- Hamas "Martyrs", April 1994
● Hamas attacks Israeli civilians for the first time.
- Continued opposition/ violent spoilers
- The mood among negotiators was collegial.
1995, Peace Agreement between Israel and Jordan
- Warm peace
- Still exists
Oslo II, 1995
- This agreement was drafted (signed?) on September 24, 1995.
- The agreement stipulated expanded self-rule for cities in the West Bank.
- As a result of the agreement, most Palestinians came under a different kind of rule.
● The West Bank was divided into Area A (Palestinian cities), Area B (Palestinian villages), and Aread C (Israeli settlement, military areas, and state lands).
- Rabin us assassinated by a right-wing religious extremist.
● He is killed after a peace rally in Tel Aviv.
● Israel is shocked because an Israeli should not kill another Israeli.
- The PLO holds elections in the West Bank in 1996
● International observers thought that the elections were relatively free and fair.
● Arafat won a landslide victory for President, receiving approximately 90% of the vote.
- This was a time period when there was support and euphoria about the peace process.
● Something like 70% of Israelis supported the peace process.
1996, Changing Winds
- Ayash killed by Israel followed by Hamas wave of "martyrs".
- Israeli elections
- Netanyahu elected Prime Minister, advocating peace and security
- Cold peace
- Increased violence
- In September 1996, relations deteriorate.
- Settlement activities
- Palestinian mobility decreases as Israel responds to terrorist attacks by closing points of entry.
- Netanyahu pressures Arafat to control Hamas
1997-2000
- 1997, Hebron
● Netanyahu wanted to renegotiate the Hebron Agreement.
- 1998, Wye River Agreement
● Minor changes to Oslo II
● Increased expansion of settlements
● Trust between parties deteriorates further
- 1997, first debate about corruption in the Palestinian government
- 1999, Labor returns to power in Israel
● Barak becomes Prime Minister
● Netanyahu admits to making mistakes which was a brilliant political move on his part and allowed him to return politics later.
● Barak promises peace within one year
● Barak intiates peace agreement with Syria but no agreement is reached.
- 2000, Camp David (II)
● Barak refuses to meet Arafat and Clinton accepts this.
● Clinton was ill-prepared and had to rely on his advisors.
● Parties spoke about key issues including Jerusalem and settlements.
● Barak offers approximately 94% of the West Bank to Palestinians including 90% of East Jerusalem. Unfortunately, this deal was only offered verbally and was later withdrawn.
● Negotiations broke down and Israelis and Palestinians were furious.
- The al-Aqsa intifada breaks out
● Confrontations occur all over the West Bank and Gaza.
● It is the most violent period to date.
Taba
- Egyptian and Jordanian leaders present.
- Lack of grassroots support on both sides
- A political solution was on the table but could not be signed.
- This was a very complicated period.
- There was increasingly a global consensus on a two state solution.
- George W. Bush accepts a two state solution which is significant because no other president and had done so.
2002, Roadmap to Peace
- Accepted by the UN Security Council
- Leaders from both sides (Palestine and Israel) were pressured to accept
- Track I approach (top-down)
● This is probably why it has not succeeded thus far.
Lingering Questions
- Are approximately 5,000 violent, radical Israeli settlers holding the peace process hostage?
- Can land swaps compensate for areas annexed by Israeli settlers?
- What will be the fate of holy sites?
- Is there a Palestinian right to return?
● Should Palestinians be allowed to return to Israel proper?
● Should those that do not or cannot return be compensated?
● Who is responsible for refugees?
- Can Track II negotiations work?
- Likewise, can secret meetings work?
- Will Israel accept a two state solution?
- How can Israel solve the paradox between the Jewish and democratic nature of the state of Israel while allowing for the return of Palestinian refugees?
- Is a two state solution a step toward a single state?
Please see powerpoint posted at:
http://kursportal.student.gu.se/inst/S2GLS%7C_%7CNONE/RS2235/filuppladdning/browse2.php?dir=Kursmoment%2FLecture+notes+and+ppt
Opening Note
- In previous lectures, we discussed the first intifada and its impact on society and desires for peace.
- Today, we will begin with the 1990s when parties were closest to peace.
- Today, we will also lift forward some Track II concepts and take about why parties have lost faith in the Track II approach.
1990-1991
- The Cold War was over and a new geopolitical order emerged.
- The Gulf War
- 1991, Madrid Conference
● Bilateral talks occur per the wishes of the Israeli government with the goal of finding a political solution.
● Multilateral talks occur per the wishes of the Arab governments with the goal of discussing major issues including the refugee problem, water, etc. These issues concerned all parties.
● Israel, Likud government: "Facts on the ground"
● Shamir: I will negotiate toughly and pursue "facts on the ground"
● Unfortunately, Shamir was not ready for peace and was, at best, willing to give Palestinians limited autonmy which he and Rabin has offered Palestinians in 1989.
● The concept of "Gaza First" was first presented at the Madrid Conference. Gaza was a big problem for the Israelis due to its high population density, it was the place that the first intifada erupted, it had/ has high unemployment, and Israel was dependent upon day labor from its residents.
● Ultimately, the negotiated were stalled and no Israeli-Palestinian deal was reached.
The Early 1990s
- Shamir wanted to build settlements in the West Bank to accomodate immigrants from the former USSR.
- However, these immigrants were not willing to live in a conflict zone.
- The US repsonded critically to plans for further settlement.
- In 1992, the election went to Rabin.
- In 1992, Rabin had a direct confrontation with Hamas (a newly emerging political force)
● A young Israeli girl was killed.
● Rabin sent Hamas leaders to southern Lebanon.
● Sending leaders to southern Lebanon was a grave error because Hamas leaders were trained in suicide bombing techniques by Hezbollah.
- After his election, Rabin pursued peace with Syria.
● Rabin asked a US mediator to offer Syria the Golan Heights but it didn't work due to a miscommunication. As a result, Israel did not believe that the US was a serious broker.
- Rabin also pursued negotiations with Palestinians.
Oslo Negotiations
- These negotiations were conducted in secret on a small scale with Track II participants.
- One of the principle aims was the breakdown of enemy images.
- Gaza First was proposed at the beginning of negotiations.
- Rabin did not know about Oslo.
● He was initially furious when he learned about the secret negotiations but he soon realized that it was the only viable track left.
Oslo, Declaration of Principles
- Symbolic recognition
- Self-rule during the interim period
- Time schedule of five years with 1999 as the deadline for a final peace agreement
- Difficult issues (such as Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security, borders, etc.) should be solved later.
-Arafat made too many demands, stifling the process.
- However, both sides agreed to recognize each other as enemies which was significant.
Gaza/ Jeriko "First"
- Gaza/ Jeriko "first", May 1994
- Limited self rule of people not land
- Some sectors
- Palestinian Authority established
- Arafat and the PLO to Gaza, July 1994
- Palestinians allowed to establish a police force which was not a military but resembled one.
The Process
- There was strong grassroots support on both sides.
- But there was also strong and loud opposition/ religious inspired nationalists.
- Hebron Massacre, February 1994
- Hamas "Martyrs", April 1994
● Hamas attacks Israeli civilians for the first time.
- Continued opposition/ violent spoilers
- The mood among negotiators was collegial.
1995, Peace Agreement between Israel and Jordan
- Warm peace
- Still exists
Oslo II, 1995
- This agreement was drafted (signed?) on September 24, 1995.
- The agreement stipulated expanded self-rule for cities in the West Bank.
- As a result of the agreement, most Palestinians came under a different kind of rule.
● The West Bank was divided into Area A (Palestinian cities), Area B (Palestinian villages), and Aread C (Israeli settlement, military areas, and state lands).
- Rabin us assassinated by a right-wing religious extremist.
● He is killed after a peace rally in Tel Aviv.
● Israel is shocked because an Israeli should not kill another Israeli.
- The PLO holds elections in the West Bank in 1996
● International observers thought that the elections were relatively free and fair.
● Arafat won a landslide victory for President, receiving approximately 90% of the vote.
- This was a time period when there was support and euphoria about the peace process.
● Something like 70% of Israelis supported the peace process.
1996, Changing Winds
- Ayash killed by Israel followed by Hamas wave of "martyrs".
- Israeli elections
- Netanyahu elected Prime Minister, advocating peace and security
- Cold peace
- Increased violence
- In September 1996, relations deteriorate.
- Settlement activities
- Palestinian mobility decreases as Israel responds to terrorist attacks by closing points of entry.
- Netanyahu pressures Arafat to control Hamas
1997-2000
- 1997, Hebron
● Netanyahu wanted to renegotiate the Hebron Agreement.
- 1998, Wye River Agreement
● Minor changes to Oslo II
● Increased expansion of settlements
● Trust between parties deteriorates further
- 1997, first debate about corruption in the Palestinian government
- 1999, Labor returns to power in Israel
● Barak becomes Prime Minister
● Netanyahu admits to making mistakes which was a brilliant political move on his part and allowed him to return politics later.
● Barak promises peace within one year
● Barak intiates peace agreement with Syria but no agreement is reached.
- 2000, Camp David (II)
● Barak refuses to meet Arafat and Clinton accepts this.
● Clinton was ill-prepared and had to rely on his advisors.
● Parties spoke about key issues including Jerusalem and settlements.
● Barak offers approximately 94% of the West Bank to Palestinians including 90% of East Jerusalem. Unfortunately, this deal was only offered verbally and was later withdrawn.
● Negotiations broke down and Israelis and Palestinians were furious.
- The al-Aqsa intifada breaks out
● Confrontations occur all over the West Bank and Gaza.
● It is the most violent period to date.
Taba
- Egyptian and Jordanian leaders present.
- Lack of grassroots support on both sides
- A political solution was on the table but could not be signed.
- This was a very complicated period.
- There was increasingly a global consensus on a two state solution.
- George W. Bush accepts a two state solution which is significant because no other president and had done so.
2002, Roadmap to Peace
- Accepted by the UN Security Council
- Leaders from both sides (Palestine and Israel) were pressured to accept
- Track I approach (top-down)
● This is probably why it has not succeeded thus far.
Lingering Questions
- Are approximately 5,000 violent, radical Israeli settlers holding the peace process hostage?
- Can land swaps compensate for areas annexed by Israeli settlers?
- What will be the fate of holy sites?
- Is there a Palestinian right to return?
● Should Palestinians be allowed to return to Israel proper?
● Should those that do not or cannot return be compensated?
● Who is responsible for refugees?
- Can Track II negotiations work?
- Likewise, can secret meetings work?
- Will Israel accept a two state solution?
- How can Israel solve the paradox between the Jewish and democratic nature of the state of Israel while allowing for the return of Palestinian refugees?
- Is a two state solution a step toward a single state?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)