Dr Rachel Horan is a Senior Associate of Incas Consulting. She is a Chartered Psychologist, a Chartered Scientist and an Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society. She is a global Monitoring, Evaluation, Research, Learning and Accountability (MERL / MEAL) specialist with a unique psychologically informed approach in conflict and fragile contexts, working with a range of international humanitarian and development organisations.
I would like to talk about the prevention, mitigation and resolution of conflict and the contributions that psychology can make to improved monitoring, evaluation, research, learning and accountability approaches (MERL and MEAL). I talk about conflict in terms of grave and devastating hostilities that cause (amongst many things) loss of life, massive displacement and violations of human rights, international norms and international humanitarian law.
I do not want to write a long academic argument to explain conflict from differing psychological perspectives. That has already been done very well. Similarly, the vast ambit of psychology in multidisciplinary responses to conflict prevention, mitigation and resolution is well known. Psychology provides insight (again, amongst many things) into the precursors and drivers of conflict. It contributes to understanding how conflict could be prevented and resolved to reduce human suffering, build stable and prosperous societies, and protect and respect human rights. Psychology informs conflict resolution approaches and how sustained peace and reconciliation could be achieved. What I would like to talk more about is the front and centre role that psychology could play in ethically and robustly understanding intervention and response to conflict.
In doing this, I draw upon my experience in fragile, conflict-affected, and violent environments, working across themes including gangs, extremism and serious violence, hate speech and incitement to genocide, conflict-related sexual violence and human rights to highlight why and how I think psychology could be harnessed more to ensure that MERL and MEAL approaches support the psychological safety of affected populations.
To explain my point, I will touch a little on theory. Conflict Theory, as associated with Karl Marx, is a useful starting point. Conflict theory asserts that conflict in society is a primary means of change. Conflict is explained as the direct result of groups and individuals competing for limited resources. This leads me to the ‘Robbers Cave Experiment’. In 1954, psychologist Muzafer Sherif conducted a rather unethical, but nonetheless seminal, study in a staged Oklahoma summer camp. With some (albeit likely very limited) parental knowledge of the ensuing experiment, attending 11 and 12- year-old boys were divided two groups, the ‘Eagles’ and the ‘Rattlers’. Initially, each group was not aware of the existence of the other. They were separated to enable them to develop a sense of group identity and observed. After a few days, they were introduced and pitted against each other in various competitions. As many would expect, hostilities quickly escalated. The power of group identity with in-group favouritism and out-group hostility was highlighted, alongside serious questions about ethics and confirmation bias. Sherif et al. determined that because the Eagles and Rattlers were created to be approximately equal, individual differences are not necessary for intergroup conflict to occur.
Henri Tajfel and John Turner’s Social Identity Theory goes one step further to suggest that conflict can occur even when there is no direct competition for resources. It suggests that in and out-group thinking is a way of enhancing self-esteem and a sense of belonging.
Of course, these are not the only theories available regarding the origin of conflict, and indeed, the question of whether group identity alone can explain prejudice between groups very much remains.
Looking at conflict resolution, I merely dip my toe here to highlight the relevance of psychology. Numerous theories abound. De-escalation, containment, redirection of individual aggressions, social structure reform, John Burton’s Human Needs Theory, John Paul Lederach's holistic theory of conflict transformation are but a few.
In the third phase of the Robbers Cave experiment, ‘superordinate’ goals were introduced. These were tasks that required cooperation between the Eagles and the Rattlers to achieve a common objective, like repairing a broken water supply and pooling resources so that everyone could watch a movie. Through these shared challenges, the boys were observed overcoming their differences, developing positive intergroup relationships. The debate continues.
The contextual, practical and ethical challenges of undertaking research, during and subsequent to conflict in fragile and conflict-affected contexts, is well understood. The people at the centre, affected populations experiencing and enduring conflict, are incredibly vulnerable. It is very much real-time in humanitarian response and fragile in developmental response. Despite the challenges, if a sound evidence base is to be established that tells us how an intervention that is designed to prevent, mitigate and resolve conflict works, why it works and when it works, evidence must be gathered in a rigorous and ethical way. The risk of continued or renewed trauma, fatigue and harm to those involved is enormous.
I look back at the 2012 OECD guidance towards ‘Evaluating Peacebuilding Activities in Settings of Conflict and Fragility: Improving Learning for Results’ where a persistent evaluation gap is highlighted. More recently, the United Nations Secretary General’s Peacebuilding Fund Evaluation Quality Assessment Synthesis (2022) tells a similar story. In its overview of the quality of 51 evaluations of projects supported through the UN secretary General’s Peacebuilding Fund (PBF), 53 percent were rated as ‘Very Good’ or ‘Good,’ but 47 percent were assessed as being ‘Fair’ or ‘Unsatisfactory’. The portfolio mostly aligned with the minimum UNEG norms and standards for evaluation but was less successful in meeting the additional PBF expectations, including the need to address conflict dynamics and peacebuilding-related outcomes, and apply or mainstream the PBF criteria (Catalytic, Time-Sensitivity, and Risk Tolerance & Innovation).
Results and indicators in monitoring and evaluation (M&E) frameworks of conflict prevention, mitigation and resolution approaches typically include social indicators, as opposed to individual, more psychological-level data. Examples include improved security, enhanced participation, governance, reduced violence, social well-being at household, community (as well as individual levels), improved social cohesion, access to basic needs, and enhanced dialogue. Individual-level indicators can include attitude and perception changes. ‘Conflict-sensitive’ monitoring and evaluation efforts systematically track and assess policies, strategies, projects and interventions, monitoring how initiatives affect the context, the intervention, and the interaction between the two. There are the overarching OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) DAC criteria, which provide an enormously important structured approach to evaluating the effectiveness, impact, efficiency, relevance, coherence, and sustainability of a development intervention using the principles of thoughtful application and alignment with evaluation purposes.
Are psychological and individual-level data just as relevant as contextual and social data in telling a whole story of change? Perhaps psychological and individual level data are more challenging to gather in terms of ethics as well as relevance, appropriateness and resources. The complexities and unique challenges of fragile, conflict-affected, and violent environments in MERL and MEAL are brilliantly summarised in a piece by Better Evaluation[1]. They introduce key concepts, approaches and ideas to consider when conducting M&E and the inadequacy of traditional linear evaluation approaches, which rely on causal logic and fixed indicators. Instead, they recommend complexity-informed M&E that embraces the dynamic nature of fragile, conflict-affected, and violent environments, focusing on capturing emergent and unintended effects and recognising the diversity of actors and factors at play. Learning and adaptation is prioritised over rigid accountability and the incorporation of multiple stakeholder perspectives is encouraged, especially local voices, to understand the contested and evolving interpretations of change. The transdisciplinary contribution of psychology is central, not only in what is measured but also in how measurement is conducted. A clear recommendation is to ensure psychological safety and trauma-informed practice, sitting alongside ensuring safety and security in M&E.
There is a really important article written by Gina Perry[2], who met a handful of the boys involved in Robbers Cave, some 59 years on. She highlights how none of the boys she spoke with remember the camp as a happy event. Perry also highlights the observation notes compiled by Sherif's team that noted symptoms of anxiety among some of the boys, including bedwetting, running away and homesickness. Trauma has a profound impact, affecting people’s psychological, neurological, biological, and social development, with enduring consequences to a person’s mental health and well-being, during and after conflict. Carpiniello’s[3] (2023) systematic review of the mental health costs of armed conflict for refugees, asylum seekers and people living in war zones observes that individuals exposed to armed conflict are three times as likely to develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety disorders, or major depression, with women and children demonstrating increased vulnerability to these outcomes.
Better Evaluation provides clear guidance that MERL and MEAL conducted in fragile, conflict-affected, and violent contexts (FCV) should be sensitive to potential trauma triggers and should adopt trauma-informed approaches. How can we best do so?
I look again at the Robbers Cave experiment to think this through. Of course, not conducting such an unethical study may be a starting point, but I am speaking hypothetically, using an example to explain my point.
Would you ask the boys of the Robbers Cave experiment questions in the immediate aftermath of the experiment? To safeguard those boys, perhaps you would come to a decision about which things were the most important to ask immediately and ask other questions at a later point. Methodology-wise, would you ask those questions using a survey, or would you want to use something more participatory? How could you avoid your methodology retraumatising those boys who were traumatised by the experiment? Would you speak to them individually, or in groups, or mix the groups up? How would you safeguard them and their families, but at the same time try and understand the contributing behaviours amongst the Eagles and Rattlers?
With my MERL and MEAL hat on, I would also think about indicators and means of verification that go beyond observation. I would try to understand the camp setting, the fact that two previous experiments had failed and what the differences were there (the answer is that previous participants had figured out the ruse). I would think about the behaviour of the psychologists and other professionals. I would also want to ask questions of the boys themselves. These could include if, why, and how they thought that the ensuing conflict resolution approaches were effective. What was their experience? How did it match up with observed group behaviours? Did the participants agree with conclusions that individual differences are not necessary or responsible for intergroup conflict? What other explanations do the boys think could account for the observed results?
How do we bring these two needs together? Reconciling the need to conduct rigorous MERL and MEAL activity that builds evidence bases and enables accountability while simultaneously ensuring our ethical approach does no harm, and is guided by a conflict and trauma responsive approach is vital, but also challenging. It is critical to assure the psychological safety of affected populations who participate in conflict-associated MERL and MEAL activity.
Participatory monitoring and evaluation in conflict prevention, mitigation and resolution has evolved towards meaningful participation and considered ethical approaches, but as the 2022 UN Peacebuilding Fund Evaluation Quality Assessment Synthesis demonstrates, there is some way to go.
As a psychologist who researches, monitors and evaluates interventions, programmes and approaches in conflict, violence and fragile settings, I have a few thoughts to add.
Groups and data collection: A question that strikes me as especially important, but one I don’t always see overtly considered in conflict-associated MERL and MEAL activities, relates to groups. Key principles of trauma-informed practice include safety, trust, choice, collaboration, empowerment and cultural consideration[4]. Thinking about psychological conflict theory, is trauma responsivity achievable in a focus group, a workshop or other group forums? Do sampling techniques in MERL and MEAL account for group factors, as guided by psychological theories of conflict? The assembly of people into ill-considered focus groups could be a trigger or trauma exposure. A very quick Google of peace building and reconciliation evaluations reveals the common inclusion of group activities including focus-groups, outcome mapping and similar workshops to harvest results and lessons, some references to ‘ do no harm approaches’ but very few detailed descriptions of conflict-related trauma informed MERL and MEAL approaches, specifically in mitigating the risks of inappropriate group formulation and ensuring psychological safety during and after data collection.
Data collection teams are also affected by the issue of groups. To ensure a conflict-related trauma informed MERL and MEAL approach, national and international data collection teams require very different considerations. Objectivity and independence, contextual knowledge, language, accessibility and other factors guide who actually collects data, but is group identity always taken into consideration? Would the psychological safety of the Robbers Cave boys have been achieved by speaking to data collectors from the university, who, at the time, were considered independent, or by others? Groups and identification with groups, whether perceived or actual, is an important consideration for data collectors in fragile, conflict-affected, and violent contexts where MERL and MEAL activity can pose a risk of triggering conflict-related trauma as well as creating potential response bias.
Data collection tools: Tools in conflict evaluation activities are often built around evaluation matrixes. Surveys, interview schedules and focus group discussion agendas are shaped by OECD DAC criteria and drill into the evaluation questions. Good ethical conduct wraps around tools through informed consent, ensuring confidentiality and anonymity, clearly articulating the tool’s purpose, avoiding misleading questions, and respecting participants' right to withdraw from the survey at any point. Are these steps enough to ensure psychological safety? Are potential triggers always considered in tool design? Would a data collector know that psychological safety had or had not been achieved?
Dominance of social and contextual considerations: I cannot help but think that a sociological approach dominates conflict-related MERL and MEAL activity. In Robbers Cave, it was the experimenters who observed a reduction of intergroup hostility, rather than anything being reported by participants. The boys were not aware that an experiment was taking place. Did the boys, or indeed their families, agree that their groups had been created equally? From the boys’ perspectives, how did hostile behaviours build up, were there differences between experiences? What were the perceptions of the camp staff and how did they feel that hostilities had reduced, if indeed they felt they had? Triangulation and a holistic story of change can surely be best informed by transdisciplinary contributions.
Ask more questions
Meaningful participation is not just about inclusivity. It is about ethically and reasonably understanding all necessary dimensions and perspectives of change to tell the story that is needed, properly. MEAL and MERL activity could be much better informed by listening to affected populations, not just in creating context-appropriate, flexible, ethical and transparent methodology, but also in guiding a contextually-relevant conflict-related, trauma-informed approach. This is an important feedback loop, driven by affected populations.
Extending MHPSS approaches to conflict-associated MERL and MEAL activity
The field of Mental Health and Psychosocial Support (MHPSS) in emergencies well utilises psychological methods in approaches to evaluation and research. Indeed, the IASC Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Emergency Settings[5] has been developed specifically for emergency contexts (with applicability to transition phases) for programmes that aim to influence the mental health and psychosocial well-being of others. The
monitoring and evaluation processes involved in MHPSS, including ethical data collection and a set of quantitative and qualitative means of verification tools and approaches, are laid out for all relevant actors and provide strict criteria and standards of ethical and appropriate psychological approaches to measuring and verifying changes. In some cases, psychological follow up support is available, immediately and after activities. Indeed, some MERL and MEAL activities are integrated into therapeutic intervention delivery, when delivered by qualified professionals.
Conclusion
These are just some of the ways that I think psychology can be leveraged in conflict-associated MERL and MEAL activity. I don’t suggest that psychology alone is effective. It is a key element of a transdisciplinary approach.
Humanitarian and development conflict interventions, policies, strategies, projects and programmes intentionally (or unintentionally) affect mental health and psychosocial well-being. Not all such interventions are categorised as MHPSS programmes. MHPSS evaluation approaches emphasise psychological safety and a trauma-informed approach; this is implicit in design. There is a lot of learning to be gathered from MHPSS towards other humanitarian and development MEAL and MERL activities in fragile, conflict-affected, and violent settings. MEAL and MERL activities in fragile, conflict-affected, and violent settings need to be conflict and trauma responsive. I think that psychological theory and practice could provide much more assistance in humanitarian and development spaces.