Defining Reconciliation Studies: Theoretical and Practical Dimensions

What the paper says

Reconciliation studies (RS) has become increasingly influential in understanding alternative views to ending conflict and dealing with the aftermath. As a discipline or field, however, it is not well defined. The actual usefulness of reconciliation (as a concept), or of RS (as a discipline), is debated, and due to its growing usage, it is critical to understand what is meant by it so that we can better evaluate its utility. In this article, I seek to show what RS actually is by reviewing existing literature and illustrating the definitional and conceptual gaps that complicate arriving at a shared understanding while outlining its main features. First, I look at definitions of the concept of reconciliation in the academic world, followed by the applied world. Then I look at RS as an academic discipline, starting with academic departments that offer degrees in Reconciliation (Studies). I then show that there are commonalities in definitions of RS and argue that it has distinct features, which is why it should be considered a separate discipline from others with which it is often associated (e.g., Conflict Resolution, Theology). I conclude with critiques of the concept of reconciliation and reconciliation studies, as well as further questions and suggestions. My approach is thus inductive, viewing academic research that uses reconciliation and/or is working within reconciliation studies and academic programs as empirical data to build a definition of reconciliation studies.