Strengthening the Relationship between Theory and Action

4. The Massively Parallel Strategy for Dealing with Scale and Complexity

This introductory article was written by ChatGPT at the direction of Heidi Burgess, who reviewed, edited, and approved the final content.
For more information

June 19, 2026

Conflict and peacebuilding work depends on both good theory and good practice. Theory helps people see patterns that are not obvious in the middle of a dispute. It can explain why some conflicts escalate, why some groups refuse compromise, and why well-intentioned interventions sometimes backfire. Practice tests those ideas in the real world, where people face fear, anger, history, power imbalances, and practical constraints. The problem is that the two worlds too often operate separately. Scholars may write for other scholars, while practitioners learn mainly from experience, funder requirements, or the urgent demands of the next crisis. When that happens, both sides are less effective than they could be.

The peacebuilding field has long recognized this problem. CDA Collaborative’s Reflecting on Peace Practice Project, for example, was organized around a practical question: what works, and what does not, in peacebuilding? That question points to the kind of relationship that is needed. Practitioners should not be treated merely as people who apply ideas developed elsewhere. They are also sources of knowledge, because they see how theories behave under pressure. Scholars, in turn, can help practitioners move beyond anecdotes by comparing cases, testing assumptions, and identifying conditions under which particular approaches are more or less likely to succeed.

A stronger theory-practice relationship would make evaluation more useful. Many peacebuilding programs rely on an implicit “theory of change” — a belief about how a particular activity will help move a conflict in a more constructive direction. The United Nations Peacebuilding Fund and other organizations have emphasized the importance of making those assumptions explicit. This matters because different interventions rest on different causal ideas. A dialogue program, media project, trauma-healing initiative, and election-monitoring may all be called "peacebuilding." But each assumes a different pathway from action to impact. If those assumptions are stated clearly, they can be examined, tested, and improved.

Practitioners also need scholarship that is written in accessible language and organized around the problems they actually face. Useful research should help answer questions such as: When does contact between opposing groups reduce hostility, and when does it intensify it? What kinds of leadership make de-escalation politically possible? How can peacebuilding initiatives avoid helping one side manipulate a process for strategic advantage? The Alliance for Peacebuilding’s work on learning and evaluation reflects the growing recognition that the field needs a better evidence base, not as an academic exercise, but as a way to improve policy and practice. Practitioners, for their part, need habits and institutions that make learning easier: time for reflection, openness to evidence that challenges favorite methods, and ways to share lessons without being punished for admitting failure.

Strengthening the relationship between theory and practice is especially important in complex, intractable conflicts. No single theory can tell practitioners exactly what to do in every situation, and no single program can prove what works everywhere. But a continuing conversation between researchers and practitioners can help the field become more adaptive and more honest. Scholars can study real interventions, investigate questions that arise from practice, and help distinguish plausible theories from wishful thinking. Practitioners can bring field knowledge, ethical judgment, and local context into the research process. Together, they can build the kind of cumulative learning that peacebuilding needs if it is to move beyond isolated successes and repeated mistakes.

—————————

This page was created by ChatGPT in response to this prompt. It was then reviewed, edited, supplemented and approved by Heidi Burgess. More information about how and why we are using AI in this way, and about the growing number of ways in which Beyond Intractability is using ChatGPT, Claude and other AI systems to generate content and build out the BI system, is available on our BI/AI Overview Page.