Theme 2 Question 2:

What kinds of partnerships, networks and coalitions might be most useful in the

future?

Three Practical Questions

How to develop cooperative processes to address those gaps or provide complementary insights and strengths?

How are current approaches to human rights & development failing?

How are specific failures of current approaches attributable to blind spots or gaps in different sectors?

Our Problem Analysis:

oTorture is a persistent feature of security and law enforcement agencies in the global south*

oTorture has been resistant to prevention strategies developed by international organisations

*Note torture is not limited to the global south, but has distinctive features and links with development in that context.

How human rights organisationsaddress torture?

Approach Institutional Constraints

Four major pillars:

1. Legal Reform (criminalisation)

2. Training (HR/IHL)

3. Naming and Shaming

4. Monitoring (open or confidential)

Minimal research on what causes and sustains torture

Minimal empirical or conceptual analysis of how torture fits in with broader systems and dynamics

Minimal robust evaluation of effectiveness of intervention

How scholars address torture and systemic institutional violence?

Approach Institutional Constraints

Interdisciplinary perspectives on institutional violence:

Sociology- situational factors

Criminology - police cultures & organisational structures

Psychology mechanics of dehumanisation, compliance and obedience.

This explanatory work has rarely been applied in the field

Institutional constraints that impede application are:

Lack of incentives for academics

Lack of project development skills

Funding structures at Universities

Human Rights Organisations’ Approach

A strengths & weaknesses analysis:

Strengths Weaknesses

Strong on action Strong links to

local organisations

Interventions take place in the actual place that problematic practices occur

HR organisations are rarely able to support rich conceptual analytical analysis

There is often no time or funding for broad and conceptually formed empirical work

Scholars’ Approach A strengths & weaknesses analysis:

Strengths Weaknesses

Strong on conceptual analysis

Can conduct rich, detailed and robust research

Can draw on a number of disciplines and experts

Universities do not support practical operationalisation of human rights work

Incentives for academics are not for project work

Universities are often not equipped to translate the research into action

Our Project: Diagnostic Starting Point

Design new methodologies that both counter

constraints and provide opportunities to build on

strengths of each field

Mindful of institutional constraints in each field

Make the most of the strengths in

each field

Lessons from a cognate field: Public Health

Based on empirical studies & target community is site of intervention

Based on a robust theory of change

Context-sensitive rather than generic

Operate at multiple levels at the same time

Most effective interventions

Address structural factors and root causes that underpin the problem, not just the manifest problem

Our Project: Multi-Dimensional Causality Models

Our Project: Multi-Dimensional Causality Models

Our Project: Synthesis of Scholarly Analysis and Intervention Design

Stage 1: Interdisciplinary

research designed to

develop theory

Stage 2: Development of

grounded empirically

based theory

Stage 3: Translation of

theory into intervention

design

Stage 4: Implementation of intervention

according to design

Stage 5: Evaluations at multiple levels

and testing theory of change