1. JUSTICE AND SECURITY: INTERCULTURAL SETTINGS IN EUROPE COMPARED Inge Vanfraechem KU Leuven Institute of Criminology ESC Porto 04.09.2015

2. Outline of the presentation 1.The project 2.Theoretical framework 3.Action research in diverse intercultural settings 4.Challenges of comparison

3. The project  7th Framework programme (EU): Collaborative Project - Topic SEC-2011.6.5-1 Conflict resolution and mediation  Aim of the project:  To provide alternative and deepened understandings of ‘security’ and ‘justice’,  based on empirical evidence of how to handle conflicts in intercultural contexts within democratic societies,  in order to set up security solutions for citizens and communities, which will be carried by the active participation of the citizens involved  Duration of the project: 4 years (2012-2016)

4. Partners 1. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KU Leuven), Belgium (Coordinator) 2. Norwegian Social Research (NOVA), Norway 3. European Forum for Restorative Justice (EFRJ), Belgium 4. Institute for the Sociology of Law and Criminology (IRKS), Austria 5. Foresee Research Group (Foresee), Hungary 6. Victimology Society of Serbia (VDS), Serbia 7. University of Ulster (UU), UK

6. Outline of the presentation 1.The project 2.Theoretical framework 3.Action research in diverse intercultural settings 4.Challenges of comparison

7. Theoretical framework: security (1)  Tracing the security discourse:  From (inter)national security to societal security  Human security (human development): in relation to property, return and reconciliation  Securitisation/widening the security agenda, and the ‘security trap/dilemma’  Eg.: the securitisation of migration

8. Theoretical framework: security (2)  Objective (statistical risks of violence and abuse) and subjective dimension (subjective experience of trust, control and safety)  A view from below: from an issue of surveillance to a search for mechanisms of social integration and development

9. Theoretical framework: security (3)  Critical security studies - Re-conceptualising ‘security’:  By bringing in and representing the experiences of the voiceless  By offering a normative basis to criticise existing practices and to conceive emancipatory approaches

10. Theoretical framework: justice  Justice not as a monolithic ideal, but as a pluralistic notion with many dimensions and claims  Justice as a process - as an outcome  Justice in intercultural settings: an opportunity as instrument for social change, not for social control

11. … and restorative justice  RJ: a focus on justice experiences  RJ in terms of its values and principles  Circles as a broader approach  Link to community work and development  Security and justice are not a given, but a task

12. Outline of the presentation 1.The project 2.Theoretical framework 3.Action research in diverse intercultural settings 4.Challenges of comparison

13. Sites of action research (1)  at the micro-level: everyday conflicts between local residents and residents with migrant background in public/social housing (Vienna) 1.Working with community organisations 2.Action researcher as ‘intern’ 3.Frauen café 4.Circles

14. Sites of action research (2)  at the meso-level: conflicts in a small town with Roma and non-Roma inhabitants (Hungary); 1.Analysis of the conflict lines 2.Six cases for circles 3.Local learning group 4.AR: mediators and researchers in one team

15. Sites of action research (3)  at the meso/macro-level: interethnic conflicts within three multiethnic and multicultural regions: conflicts between Serbs, Albanians, Muslims and Croats (Serbia); 1.Qualitative interviews 2.Quantitative survey 3.Workshops: circles with fictive case

16. Sites of action research (4)  at the meso/macro-level: civil conflicts at three sites in Northern Ireland:  conflicts between a local community and gangs of youths (knee-capping);  between long term residents and recent immigrants;  and inter-community sectarian conflict (training ex-combatants).

17. Outline of the presentation 1.The project 2.Theoretical framework 3.Action research in diverse intercultural settings 4.Challenges of comparison

18. Methodological phases  Step 1. Theoretical conceptualisation  Step 2. Operationalisation  Step 3. Application in practice  Step 4. Feedback to theoretical concepts  Step 5. Re-conceptualisation

19. Data collection  Local action, observation, interviews, focus groups  ‘Thick description’ of local experiences  Logbook and participatory film making  Linking theory to practice: the use of ‘evaluation grids’  Ongoing analysis in local team and European steering committee  Nvivo online database

22. Comparative analysis (1) Identifying and encoding available data (grids, context reports, deliverables) against a number of key variables related to: The context of the conflict with its surrounding culture, values and attitudes The mechanisms of participation, dialogue and facilitation The outcomes at personal, societal and institutional level

23. Comparative analysis (2)  A total of about 70 grids produced, encoded and analysed  Sharing and collaborating with partners: database/website/iPad solution  Nvivo dataset  Regular feedback to the partners (evaluation grids)  Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA)

24. More information  www.alternativeproject.eu  Alternativeproject.wordpress.com  Alternativefilms.euforumrj.org  Inge.vanfraechem@law.kuleuven.be Inge.vanfraechem@law.kuleuven.be  Ivo.aertsen@law.kuleuven.be Ivo.aertsen@law.kuleuven.be

25. Final conference  Leuven, 16-18 November 2015