Archive | November, 2015

Stuff from me

19 Nov

Two outputs from me:

The first is a 10 minute YouTube clip of me talking about the EU and Peacebuilding at an ACCESS Europe event in Amsterdam in October 2015:

The second is a link to a series of working papers – mine is no. 23 “Political versus sociological time: The fraught world of timelines and deadlines”

This paper is a conceptual scoping of the construction and maintenance of time in peace processes. It argues that the temporal
dimensions of peacemaking are culturally specific constructions that go beyond scalar or measurable time. The various constructions of time
merge, coexist, and impinge on each other to form hybrid conceptualisations and practices of time. This paper concentrates on what are probably the two most important conceptualisations of time in relation to peace processes: political time and sociological time. Political time pertains to formalised concepts of time that are often constructed and maintained by military
and political elites. It may include dates for elections, the timing of ceasefires, or deadlines for peace negotiations. Sociological time refers to non-elite concepts of time that may revolve around the everyday activities of family life, work, and cultural pursuits.


New article: The fallacy of constructing hybrid political orders

10 Nov

A new article by myself and Oliver Richmond is now out.

‘The fallacy of constructing hybrid political orders: a reappraisal of the hybrid turn in peacebuilding’, International Peacekeeping, Online first: DOI:10.1080/13533312.2015.1099440

This article reviews the recent academic and policy interest in hybridity and hybrid political orders in relation to peacebuilding. It is sceptical of the ability of international actors to manufacture with precision hybrid political orders, and argues that the shallow instrumentalization of hybridity is based on a misunderstanding of the concept. The article engages in conceptual-scoping in thinking through the emancipatory potential of hybridity. It differentiates between artificial and locally legitimate hybrid outcomes, and places the ‘hybrid turn’ in the literature in the context of the continued evolution of the liberal peace as it struggles to come to terms with crises of access and legitimacy.

If you would like a pdf copy, then email me at