Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding Assessment: Group Project and Individual Essay – PES7046-B

The analysis and findings from the Group Project should be presented in a written  group report of between 1000 – 1200 words (not including title, boxes, diagrams, tables, figures, references and bibliography, or appendix).

Students should form their own groups of between 3-6 members (although exceptional cases of smaller or larger groups may be considered, with the specific authorisation of the Module leader). A member of the group should inform as soon as possible the module leader (and other tutors) about the group members (names and UB numbers) and the question (and case study) that the group has selected.

Students should not do a group project (and associated project report) on the same (or very similar) topic or question as they choose for their individual essay. This means, for example, avoiding significant overlap in relation to the analytical focus of the question to be addressed, or to a case study country. If in doubt, consult with the Module Leader.

Each group will form an imaginary Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding Evaluation Team (PPET) which is to advise the UN Peacebuilding Commission. Each Group (PPET) must choose a case study of a recent (since 2000) multilateral peacekeeping and/or peacebuilding mission(s) or activity in a conflict-affected country (or region within such a country). If in doubt about the suitability of your choice, it is advisable to consult with one of the Module Tutors for advice before finalising your choice of case study.

Each Group (or Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding Evaluation Team!) should collectively undertake research and analysis, and then prepare a report of its analysis and findings, responding to the following request: ‘What lessons for future UN Peace Missions (in a similar country context) should be taken from this mission (good and bad)’ regarding ONE of the following issues (Please choose ONE only):

1: Ensuring adequate and sustainable protection of civilians

2: Promoting and supporting effective and sustainable elite bargains

3: Applying the UN Women, Peace and Security Framework and UNSC 1325

4: Implementing Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration

5: Developing Security and Justice Sector Reform approaches

6: An appropriate-to-context scale of international “footprint” for effective peacebuilding

7: Enabling local peacebuilding processes within the framework of a wider international peacebuilding mission

8. Managing and providing for refugees and displaced people

9. Enabling an appropriate process for transitional justice and societal reconciliation

Students should not choose the same topic or question as they choose for their individual essay. This means, for example, avoiding significant overlap in relation to the analytical focus of the question to be addressed, or to a case study country. If in doubt, consult with a Module Tutor.

Groups should consult UN, other official, and NGO sources, as well as academic and policy research institute publications, and should take account of themes and debates discussed in module lecture and seminar sessions. The work should be fully referenced (with a bibliography), but presented as a report, rather than an essay, using text boxes, appendices, diagrams, charts and pictures as appropriate (which do not count in the word length). Note that the report does not need an executive summary, in view of the limited word-length of the whole report.

The Project Report should include the following:

Clear title and introduction specifying the multilateral/UN mission and country (or region of country), outlining the details of its mandate (with relevant references) and the selected thematic focus. The introduction should signpost the overall argument/findings.The first part of the report should present the findings of the group’s critical analysis of the multilateral/UN mission in relation to the selected thematic focus, with a brief outline of the evidence and analysis from which the group has developed each of the key findings (50% weighting)

The second part of the report should present key lessons to be learned for similar peace missions in similar contexts in the future (50% weighting).

Groups will be assessed on the depth of research and analysis which will be reflected in the quality of the findings and identified ‘lessons-learned.’ In this context, Group reports need to go beyond basic, generic findings or lessons-learned, which are already widely known and generic to peacebuilding missions in such country contexts. Thus, for example, vague findings on generic issues such as limited ‘political will’ or the need for more resources or co-ordination provide no evidence of substantial research or analysis, and will be assessed as such.

The group project and associated report is intended to be a collective exercise between all members, and all members will normally receive the same mark. The group research, analysis and report preparation should not only be shared reasonably equally between all members of the group; but also should involve several group meetings where group members can critically discuss emerging findings in order to develop a collective analysis. Please notify the Module Leader if serious problems are being experienced in the participation or contributions from a group member.

Groups should keep a record of the dates, times and content of their group meetings, as well as a paragraph detailing the contributions of individual group members to the report itself (whether research, analysis, drafting of particular sections, etc.). These should be presented as an appendix at the end of the submitted Group Project report. No group member should allow submission of the information on this appendix in their name unless they agree to its accuracy.

Plagiarism, essay purchasing and the use of Artificial Intelligence: The usual warnings about plagiarism apply to the group report. The use of AI has had severe consequences for students in the last two years; its syntax, grammatical structure and general inability to conduct complex analyses have become all too easy to detect. In the last two years, a large number of students were submitted for Academic Misconduct and found to be in breach, thus being excluded or having to resubmit with a cap on the mark between 0 and 40%. The advice is simple: DO NOT COPY from other sources or AI. You should keep copies of your draft work, reading notes and maintain records of your access to readings to provide evidence of your research and writing process if required to demonstrate the authenticity of your work.

Research

Excellent (70+)- An Excellent range and depth of policy, practitioner or academic sources; evidence of thorough, systematic inquiry.

Good – Very Good (60-69) – A convincing range and depth of policy, practitioner or academic sources; evidence of relevant and purposeful inquiry.

Satisfactory (50-59) – An appropriate range of policy, practitioner or academic sources used, but there is scope for more thorough research.

Borderline (40-49) – An appropriate number of policy, practitioner or academic sources used, but there is clear scope for more focused and thorough research

Fail (0-39) – Little or no evidence of research on the topic

Structure, Coherence and Focus

Excellent (70+)- The report is highly focused, coherent, concise and purposeful, at all levels of the text. Excellent teamwork is evident in the overall coherency.

Good – Very Good (60-69) – The report is very focused, coherent and purposeful, with some scope to refine sequencing in parts of the text. Good teamwork is evident in the overall coherency.

Satisfactory (50-59) – The report is mainly focused, coherent and purposeful, but with scope to improve sequencing and signposting. Teamwork is evident, but with scope for improvement.

Borderline (40-49) – The report has basic elements of structure but has weak focus and coherence throughout, reflecting a series of individual – rather than collective – efforts.

Fail (0-39) – The report is very disorganized and does not maintain focus on the question, reflecting a disjointed set of individual contributions with no evidence of teamwork.

Argument and Analysis

Excellent (70+)- There is a strong, persuasive argument/ analysis, showing very precise and nuanced reasoning.

Good – Very Good (60-69) – – A coherent and convincing argument/analysis is presented. Some aspects of reasoning could be more precise or nuanced.

Satisfactory (50-59) – A coherent argument/analysis is presented, but some elements require further elaboration, support or refinement.

Borderline (40-49) – There is limited argument / analysis and  weaknesses in reasoning are apparent.

Fail (0-39) – There is no clear argument / analysis in the essay. Multiple errors in reasoning are present.

Language and Expression

Excellent (70+)– The report is fluent, sophisticated and persuasive. The text has been carefully edited and refined. It is a pleasure to read.

Good – Very Good (60-69) – – The report is mostly fluent and persuasive but there are a few mistakes and/or areas for refinement.

Satisfactory (50-59) – The report communicates adequately but there is scope for more precision and care in the construction of sentences and paragraphs.

Borderline (40-49) – Intended meaning is not always clear and there is a need for more precision and care in the communication of ideas.

Fail (0-39) –  The presentation of the report is very weak, with significant problems in the basic communication of ideas.

Scholarly Standards

Excellent (70+)- Comfortably meets or exceeds standards. Referencing clearly distinguishes and supports the student’s contributions to debate.

Good – Very Good (60-69) – – Comfortably meets university standards: Referencing is thorough, accurate and clear.

Satisfactory (50-59) – Meets university standards: Sources are referenced but some errors in formatting or presentation.

Borderline (40-49) – Mostly meets university standards: Most but not all and important sources are referenced, and there are significant formatting errors.

Fail (0-39) – Does not meet university standards: There are no or very few accurate citations.

Your essay question should be selected from the below list of essay questions. No other titles/questions will be accepted. Do not choose an essay question that directly overlaps with your group project. If in doubt, consult with the Module Leader.

As well as the 2800-3000 word essay, your assessed essay document should also contain the following additional material

One 300-word reflection detailing precisely how the topic was discussed in class (and office hours), how these discussions informed your thinking and decision-making when researching and writing the essay. This additional 300 word reflection is to be included as an appendix to the essay.

These essay questions are provisional and still subject to change, pending review by the External Examiner. However, they do provide a reliable basis for starting to select and prepare your essay.

Please ensure that your essay directly addresses the full question as asked, drawing upon relevant themes and debates discussed in the module teaching sessions. You should develop and illustrate your answer with empirical experience relating to peacebuilding missions, as well as reviewing and using relevant academic literature on the topic.

The range of essay question topics is broad, to allow you to engage in depth with an issue you have found interesting within the module. This breadth means that you cannot choose a similar question or case study in your group project. If in doubt, consult with the Module Leader.

1. Pursuing elements of the ‘liberal peacebuilding’ approach is important for any peacebuilding mission to have a reasonable chance at achieving sustainable peace after war.’ How far do you agree with this statement?

2. The risks that ‘Liberal peacebuilding’ agendas can be misused to legitimise self-interested intervention by states and other international actors into the political and economic affairs of fragile states outweigh the potential benefits of this approach for peacebuilding.’ Critically discuss and assess the validity of this statement.

3. Critically assess the effectiveness of efforts to develop ‘elite bargains’ in peacebuilding processes using one or more case studies of your choice.

4. To what extent is it necessary and useful to require holding of national elections to be part of an internationally-supported peace-building process in a country emerging from large-scale armed conflict?

5.  To what extent can multilateral peacebuilding and multilateral counter-terrorism OR counter-insurgency programmes successfully be combined?

6. Critically assess the role of international NGOs in promoting peacebuilding in a country emerging from conflict of your choice.

7.  Select one case study of a peacekeeping mission since 2000 that has been criticised as inadequate or damaging. Evaluate the assessments and explanations given by observers and academics in relation to ONE of the following themes:

a. protection of civilians OR

b. transitional justice OR

c. disarmament, demobilisation and re-integration of ex-combatants OR

d. implementation of UNSC Resolution 1325 and application of the UN Women, Peace and Security framework OR

e. security and justice sector reform

f. the re-establishment of an adequately stable and inclusive government OR

g. Management or refugees and displaced people.

8. Analyse and assess the risks that international peace missions’ efforts to stabilize a country emerging from conflict can marginalize or undermine priorities for longer-term sustainable peacebuilding; drawing upon empirical evidence or examples.

9. Critically examine explanations for the limited impact of the UN’s Women, Peace and Security framework in conflict-affected contexts. Is its limited impact due to inadequate international efforts at implementation, or intrinsic obstacles to its implementation?

10. Assess the extent to which UN policies and reforms designed to prevent and reduce Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by personnel of UN Peace Missions have been appropriate and effective?

11. Critically examine and assess the ways in which community-level peacebuilding initiatives have been supported and/or undermined by international peace missions since 2000. Identify and explore good practices using one or more case studies.

12. Critically examine the inter-relationships between Disarmament, Demobilisation and Re-integration of ex-combatants (DDR) and security and justice sector reform (SSR) processes and programmes in peace-building strategies and missions. Further develop your analysis using a case study of your choice.

13. To what extent is Security and Justice Sector Reform (SJSR) essential for peacebuilding in conflict-affected countries; and to what extent are the specific priorities for SSJR highly context-specific?

14. Critically examine and assess the design and implementation of either a Security and Justice Sector Reform (SJSR) process or a DDR (Disarmament, Demobilisation and Re-integration) programme in a country emerging from conflict (of your choice).

15. Critically examine and assess ONE approach or mechanism for addressing transitional justice in countries emerging from war. Further develop and illustrate your analysis in relation how this mechanism or approach has been applied in a country case study of your choice.

16. To what extent can long-term processes of societal reconciliation be effectively supported or accelerated by international peace-building programmes in the years immediately after a war ends?

17. To what extent is Transitional Justice an essential element of a sustainable peacebuilding process in countries emerging from large-scale conflict?

18. Analyse and assess the risks that international peace missions’ efforts to stabilize a country emerging from conflict can marginalize or undermine priorities for longer-term sustainable peacebuilding, drawing upon empirical evidence or examples.

These questions draw upon learning from across the whole PES7046-B module.

Your essay is an opportunity to demonstrate your understanding of key concepts and debates covered in this module, and to show your progress in developing core academic research and writing skills.

Be sure to address the question in full. The questions are asking you to respond to a given debate. This means developing and demonstrating an ARGUMENT. Do not sit on the fence, but critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of different perspectives on the issue, using evidence, examples and data from your own research. This ANALYSIS will strengthen your argument!

This guidance is really important.  Essays that provide lots of interesting description and context, but don’t directly address the key issues raised by the question risk being failed.  Essays that systematically and directly engage with the question in a way that demonstrates you have properly understood the question, and have critically engaged with the relevant debates and evidence, are likely to receive a good mark even if there are some problems with quality of expression and such like.

Essays should discuss the relevant concepts and debates that have been raised in the module’s lectures, seminars and lecture notes. More marks will be given for those essays that engage appropriately with the debates raised in class, and marks will be deducted from those which do not take into account such debates where relevant. Make sure to apply these debates to any case study.

Develop a clear structure for your essay before you write a full draft, in order to help to ensure that you systematically address the question. I strongly encourage you to bring your essay plans to the office hours.

Please note that plagiarism, essay purchasing and the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become highly problematic in the last year or so. Last year, a number of students were submitted for Academic Misconduct and found to be in breach, thus being excluded or having to resubmit with a cap on the mark between 0 and 40%. The advice is simple: DO NOT COPY from other sources or AI. You should keep copies of your draft work, reading notes and maintain records of your access to readings to provide evidence of your research and writing process if required to demonstrate the authenticity of your work.

Also be careful of software that promises to make your essay better. This may be construed as AI-related plagiarism. We do not expect note-perfect grammar. Marks are given for engagement with the topic and sources, clarity of the debate, and coherent structure, rather than grammatical precision.

What is the 300-word Reflection?

In this short piece, which should be included in the same document as your essay, you should write about how your essay question or themes related to it were discussed specifically throughout the module. Given the breadth of the module this is likely to mean you should make connections between multiple weeks.

The reflection is intended to be a personal reflection of learning, and so it should not be generic. Rather, it should make precise connections between your prior knowledge and assumptions about an issue, the knowledge you developed in the module and the knowledge you developed whilst preparing your essay.

You can write about how your readings, class discussions and office hour discussions with the module leader affected your thinking and decision-making in the essay research and writing process. The more specific you can be here, the better. Consider the following questions as prompts:

• What were your thoughts on the class discussions and core readings? (note: this does not necessarily mean you have to say you were inspired by the readings or discussions. You might disagree strongly with them, and that’s an excellent basis for reflection!).
• Did the class discussions and core readings prompt you to read other resources? If so, which ones?
• Were there debates in class on the topic? Did you agree or disagree with the perspectives on the debates?
• Did you hold discussions during office hours? If so, what were these?
• How did these readings and discussions inform the development of your essay?
• Did your thinking change throughout the course of the module, or did your convictions grow stronger following deeper research?

The referencing style used at Bradford University is Harvard. You can find guidance on referencing here: Referencing and Plagiarism – Help – University of Bradford.

References must include precise page numbers; please make sure you make a habit of taking note of page numbers as you read the weekly seminar materials.

Please use Arial font, size 12. Text should be double-spaced.

Submission of the essay will be via Canvas. A submission link will be set up within the Assessment folder. Your essay should be submitted as a Word document.

Work that is over the stated word length will attract a penalty in proportion to the additional words (e.g. 5%)

All submissions are checked by Turnitin plagiarism detection software. A separate link in Canvas allows you to review your essay prior to submission. Please note that there is no permitted Turnitin score percentage. You should focus on ensuring your essay meets the university guidelines for referencing and academic integrity: What is plagiarism? – Find out about – University of Bradford

If you have any questions about this assignment, please speak with your module leader in good time before the deadline.

Please ensure you allow enough time for completing your work. Avoid submitting it very close to the deadline in case of technical issues (e.g. broken Wi-Fi). It is your responsibility to ensure you submit the correct file and on time.

Does the essay demonstrate effort to systematically collect and review appropriate sources related to the essay?

Are the aims, purpose and central arguments of the essay articulated and reflected in the structure and organization of the text, at all levels? Is there a logical sequence to the presentation of ideas and evidence?

Does the student develop a clear, coherent and logically consistent response to the essay question/topic? Is there a clear and supported line of reasoning – a set of reasons or contributing arguments that together support the overall argument/analysis?

Does the student recognise and discuss strengths and limitations in, or contentions surrounding, the concepts, theories and evidence employed in the essay? Is there awareness of underlying assumptions or weaknesses in academic work?

Does the student write clearly and persuasively? Are sentences and paragraphs well-constructed and precise? Has the text been edited carefully for spelling and grammatical errors?

Are sources in the essay fully acknowledged and accurately referenced according to university guidelines? Is there an accurate reference list/bibliography?