Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T08:35:08.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Learning “To Be” Kinyarwanda in Postgenocide Rwanda: Immersion, Iteration, and Reflexivity in Times of Transition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2015

Bert Ingelaere
Bert Ingelaere*
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Research Fellow—Research Foundation Flanders Institute of Development Policy and Management, University of Antwerp Centre for Research on Peace and Development, University of Leuvenbert.ingelaere@uantwerp.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The research activity generating data in times of transition is subject to politicization and needs to deal with widespread distrust due to the legacy of violence or atrocity. This article discusses the main principles of a research design that took into account these hindrances by making prudence its basic tenet. The objective was to generate understanding of the functioning of Rwanda’s gacaca court process through a heightened awareness in data collection. In doing so, this article calls attention to the importance of a reflective and adaptive research process in times of transitional justice. Two research principles are discussed in detail: immersion and iteration. The latter were adopted to facilitate the generation of context-specific knowledge on both breadth and depth of the transitional justice process. This article demonstrates how a pragmatic stance that draws on a variety of epistemologies and methodological approaches facilitates data collection as well as navigation of the field of study. It will be argued that data collection and the activity of navigating the field while collecting data reciprocally produce knowledge.

Résumé

L’activité de recherche productrice de données en période de transition est vulnérable à la politicisation. Par ailleurs, elle doit vaincre la méfiance généralisée, produit d’un passé teinté de violence ou d’atrocités. Cet article présente les grands principes d’une activité de recherche prenant en compte ces problèmes en se fondant sur le principe de la prudence. L’objectif était de mieux comprendre le fonctionnement des tribunaux gacaca du Rwanda par une cueillette de données particulièrement prudente. Ce faisant, l’on attire l’attention sur l’importance d’un processus de recherche réfléchi et adaptatif en période de justice transitionnelle. Deux principes de recherche sont analysés à fond : l’immersion et l’itération. Ces principes ont été adoptés pour faciliter la production de connaissances contextuelles sur l’envergure et la profondeur du processus de justice transitionnelle. L’article démontre comment une démarche pragmatique, fondée sur des épistémologies et méthodologies diverses, facilite non seulement la collecte de données mais aussi l’exploration du domaine à l’étude. Enfin, l’on avance que la cueillette de données et l’exploration d’un domaine sont deux activités productrices de connaissances mutuellement renforçantes.

Keywords

transitional justicegacacaRwandaknowledgemethodreflexivityimmersionjustice transitionnellegacacaRwandaconnaissancesméthoderéflectivitéimmersion
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 30 , Special Issue 2: Ways of Knowing Atrocity / Modes de connaissances de l’atrocité , August 2015 , pp. 277 - 292
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association / Association Canadienne Droit et Société 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Axinn, William D., and Pearce, Lisa D.. 2006. Mixed Method Data Collection Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barron, Patrick, Smith, Claire Q., and Woolcock, Michael. 2004. “Understanding Local Level Conflict in Developing Countries. Theory, Evidence and Implications from Indonesia.” Social Development Papers, Conflict Prevention and Reconstruction 19. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
Baxter, Victoria. 2002. Empirical Research Methodologies of Transitional Justice Mechanism. Conference Report, Stellenbosch: Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, 18–20 November.Google Scholar
Begley, Larissa. 2009. “The Other Side of Fieldwork: Experiences and Challenges of Conducting Research in the Border Area of Rwanda/Eastern Congo.” Anthropology Matters 11 (2): 1–11.Google Scholar
Baines, Erin K. 2007. “The Haunting of Alice: Local Approaches to Justice and Reconciliation in Northern Uganda.” The International Journal of Transitional Justice 1 (1): 91–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre, and Wacquant, Loïc J. D.. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brounéus, K. 2008. “Truth-Telling as Talking Cure? Insecurity and Retraumatization in the Rwandan Gacaca Courts.” Security Dialogue, 39 (1): 55–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brounéus, K. 2010. “The Trauma of Truth Telling: Effects of Witnessing in the Rwandan Gacaca Courts on Psychological Health.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 54 (3): 408–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley-Zistel, S. 2005. “‘The Truth Heals?’ Gacaca Jurisdictions and the Consolidation of Peace in Rwanda.” Die Friedens-Warte 80 (1–2): 113–30.Google Scholar
Buckley-Zistel, S. 2006. “Remembering to Forget: Chosen Amnesia as a Srategy for Local Coexistence in Post-Genocide Rwanda.” Africa 76 (2): 131–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnet, J. 2008. “The Injustice of Local Justice. Truth, Reconciliation and Revenge in Rwanda.” Genocide Studies and Prevention 3 (2): 173–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryman, A. 2008. “The End of the Paradigm Wars?” In The Sage Handbook of Social Research Methods, edited by Pertti, Alasuutari, Bickman, Leonard, and Brannen, Julia, 13–25. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Chakravarty, Anuradhna. 2012. “‘Partially Trusting’ Field Relationships. Opportunities and Constraints of Fieldwork in Rwanda’s Postconflict Setting.” Field Methods 24 (3): 251–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, P. 2007. “Hybridity, Holism, and ‘Traditional’ Justice: The Case of the Gacaca Courts in Post-Genocide Rwanda.” George Washington International Law Review 39 (4): 765–837.Google Scholar
Clark, P. 2008. “The Rules (and Politics) of Engagement: The Gacaca Courts and Post-Genocide Justice, Healing and Reconciliation in Rwanda.” In After Genocide. Transitional Justice, Post-Conflict Reconstruction and Reconciliation in Rwanda and Beyond, edited by Clark, P. and Kaufman, Z. D.. London: Hurst & Company.Google Scholar
Clark, P. 2010. The Gacaca Courts, Post-Genocide Justice and Reconciliation in Rwanda. Justice Without Lawyers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creswell, John W. and Plano Clark, Vicki L.. 2007. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Daly, E. 2002. “Between Punitive and Reconstructive Justice: The Gacaca Courts in Rwanda.” New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 34: 355–96.Google Scholar
De Lame, Danielle. 2005. A Hill Among a Thousand. Transformations and Ruptures in Rural Rwanda. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Digneffe, F., and Fierens, J., eds. 2003. Justice et gacaca. L’expérience Rwandaise et le génocide. Namur: Presses Universitaires de Namur.Google Scholar
Doughty, K. C. 2011. Contesting Community: Legalized Reconciliation Efforts in the Aftermath of Genocide in Rwanda. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. http://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/333 (accessed May 15, 2012).Google Scholar
Drumbl, M. A. 2000a. “Punishment Postgenocide: From Guilt to Shame to ‘Civis’ in Rwanda.” New York University Law Review 75 (5): 1221–1326.Google Scholar
Drumbl, M. A. 2000b. “Sclerosis. Retributive Justice and the Rwandan Genocide.” Punishment and Society 2 (3): 287–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drumbl, M. A. 2005. “Law and Atrocity: Settling Accounts in Rwanda.” Ohio Northern University Law Review 31: 41–72.Google Scholar
Emerson, Robert M., Fretz, Rachel I., and Shaw, Linda L.. 1995. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnström, Svensker. 2003. Living With Bad Surroundings. War and Existential Uncertainty in Acholiland, Northern Uganda. Uppsala: Uppsala University Library.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2001. Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujii, Lee-Ann. 2010. “Shades of Truth and Lies: Interpreting Testimonies of War and Violence.” Journal of Peace Research 47 (2): 231–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaparayi, I. T. 2001. “Justice and Social Reconstruction in the Aftermath of Genocide in Rwanda: An Evaluation of the Possible Role of the Gacaca Tribunals.” African Human Rights Law Journal 1: 78–106.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L. 2006. Overcoming Apartheid. Can Truth Reconcile a Divided Nation? New York City: Russel Sage Foundation Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamber, Brandon, and Kelly, Grainne. 2005. A Place for Reconciliation? Conflict and Locality in Northern Ireland. Report 18. Belfast: Democratic Dialogue, September.Google Scholar
Harrell, P. E. 2003. Rwanda’s Gamble. Gacaca and the New Model of Transitional Justice. New York: Writers Club Press.Google Scholar
Hentschel, Jesko. 1999. “Contextuality and Data Collection Methods: A Framework and Application to Health Service Utilisation.” The Journal of Development Studies 35: 64–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honeyman, C., and Meierhenrich, J.. 2002. Gacaca Jurisdictions: Transnational Justice in Rwanda: Observations From June 10–August 8, 2002. Report. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Honeyman, C., Hudani, S., Tiruneh, A., Hierta, J., Chirayath, L., Iliff, A., and Meierhenrich, J.. 2004. “Establishing Collective Norms: Potentials for Participatory Justice in Rwanda.” Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 10 (1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingelaere, B. 2006. “Changing Lenses and Contextualizing the Rwandan (Post-)Genocide.” In L’Afrique des Grands Lacs. Dix ans de transitions conflictuelles, Annuaire 2005–2006, edited by Reyntjens, F. and Marysse, S., 389–414. Paris : L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Ingelaere, B. 2007. “A la recherche de la vérité dans les juridictions gacaca au Rwanda” In L’Afrique des Grands Lacs, Annuaire 2006–2007, edited by Reyntjens, F. and Marysse, S., 41–74. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Ingelaere, B. 2008. “The Gacaca Courts in Rwanda.” In Traditional Justice and Reconciliation Mechanisms After Violent Conflict: Learning from African Experiences, edited by Huyse, Luc and Salter, Mark, 25–59. Stockholm: International Idea.Google Scholar
Ingelaere, B. 2009a. “‘Does the Truth Pass Across the Fire Without Burning?’ Locating the Short Circuit in Rwanda’s Gacaca Courts.” Journal of Modern African Studies 47 (4): 507–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingelaere, B. 2009b. « Mille collines, mille gacacas. La vie en marge du processus gacaca. In L’Afrique des Grands Lacs, Annuaire 2008–2009, edited by Reyntjens, F. and Marysse, S., 29–42. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Ingelaere, B. 2010. “Do We Understand Life After Genocide? Center and Periphery in the Construction of Knowledge in Post-Genocide Rwanda.” African Studies Review 53 (1): 41–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingelaere, B. 2011a. “The Rise of Meta-Conflicts During Rwanda’s Gacaca Process.” In L’Afrique des Grands Lacs, Annuaire 2010–2011, edited by Reyntjens, F., Marysse, S., and Vandeginste, S., 303–18. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Ingelaere, B. 2011b. “From Model to Practice: Researching and Representing Rwanda’s ‘Modernized’ Gacaca Courts.” Critique of Anthropology, 321 (4): 388–414.Google Scholar
Karekezi, U. A., Nshimiyimana, A., and Mutamba, B.. 2004. “Localizing Justice: Gacaca Courts in Post-Genocide Rwanda.” In My Neighbour, My Enemy. Justice and Community in the Aftermath of Mass Atrocity, edited by Stover, E. and Weinstein, H. M., 69–84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Elisabeth. 2009. “From Data Problems to Data Points: Challenges and Opportunities of Research in Postgenocide Rwanda.” African Studies Review 52 (3): 127–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nkusi, Laurent. 1987 “Dire et ne pas dire au Rwanda.” In Sagesse et vie quotidien en Afrique. Actes du symposium international de philosophie (Kigali, 31 Juillet – 7 Août 1983). Suivi de Journée Alexis Kagame : vie et œuvre. Kigali 8 août 1983, edited by Republic of Rwanda. Ministère de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche scientifique.Google Scholar
McEvoy, Kieran. 2007. “Beyond Legalism: Towards a Thicker Understanding of Transitional Justice.” Journal of Law and Society 34 (4): 411–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molenaar, A. 2005. “Gacaca: Grassroots Justice After Genocide. The Key to Reconciliation in Rwanda?” Research Report 77/2005. Leiden: African Studies Centre.Google Scholar
Olivier de Sardan, Jean-Pierre. 2008. La rigueur du qualitatif. Les contraintes empiriques de l’interprétation socio-anthropologique. Louvain-La-Neuve: Bruylant-Academia s.a.Google Scholar
Olivier de Sardan, Jean-Pierre. n.d. The Policy of Fieldwork. Data Production in Socio-Anthropology. Paper presented at Ph.D. workshop on theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of local politics in developing countries. Roskilde, Denmark, May 5, 2010 (on file with author).Google Scholar
Olsen, Tricia D., Payne, Leigh A., and Reiter, Andrew G.. 2010. Transitional Justice in Balance. Comparing Processes, Weighing Efficacy. Washington, DC: USIP Press Books.Google Scholar
Pottier, Johan. 2002. Re-Imagining Rwanda: Conflict, Survival and Disinformation in the Late Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purdekova, Andrea. 2011. “‘Even If I Am Not Here, There Are So Many Eyes’: Surveillance and State Reach in Rwanda.” Journal of Modern African Studies 49 (3): 475–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, Vijayendra and Woolcock, Michael. 2003. “Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches in Program Evaluation.” In The Impact of Economic Policies on Poverty and Income Distribution. Evaluation Techniques and Tools, edited by Bourguignon, François and Pareira Da Silva, Luiz A.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 16–190.Google Scholar
Rettig, M. 2008. “Gacaca: Truth, Justice and Reconciliation in Postconflict Rwanda?” African Studies Review 51 (3): 25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rettig, M. 2011. “The Sovu Trials: The Impact of Genocide Justice on One Community.” In Remaking Rwanda. State Building and Human Rights After Mass Violence, edited by Straus, S. & Waldorf, L., 194–209. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Reyntjens, Filip. 1990. Le gacaca ou la justice du gazon au Rwanda. Politique Africaine. 40: 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rimé, B., Kanyangara, P., Yzerbyt, V., and Paez, D.. 2011. “The Impact of Gacaca Tribunals in Rwanda: Psychosocial Effects of Participation in a Truth and Reconciliation Process After a Genocide.” European Journal of Social Psychology 41 (6): 695–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarkin, J. 2000. “Promoting Justice, Truth and Reconciliation in Transitional Societies: Evaluating Rwanda’s Approach in the New Millennium of Using Community Based Gacaca Tribunals to Deal With the Past.” International Law FORUM du droit international 2: 112–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarkin, J. 2001. “The Tension Between Justice and Reconciliation in Rwanda: Politics, Human Rights, Due Process and the Role of the Gacaca Courts in Dealing With the Genocide.” Journal of African Law 45 (2): 143–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takeuchi, S. 2011. “Gacaca and DDR: The Disputable Record of State-Building in Rwanda.” Jica-Ri Working Paper No. 32. Tokyo: JICA Research Institute.Google Scholar
Teddlie, Charles and Tashakorri, Abbas. 2003. “Major Issues and Controversies in the Use of Mixed Methods in the Social and Behavioural Sciences.” In Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, edited by Teddlie, Charles and Tashakorri, Abbas, 3–49. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Thomson, S. M. 2010. “Getting Close to Rwandans Since the Genocide: Studying Everyday Life in Highly Politicized Research Settings.” African Studies Review 53 (3): 19–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomson, S. M. 2011. “The Darker Side of Transitional Justice: The Power Dynamics Behind Rwanda’s Gacaca Courts.” Africa 81 (3): 373–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, S. M., and Nagy, R.. 2010. “Law, Power and Justice: What Legalism Fails to Address in the Functioning of Rwanda’s Gacaca Courts.” International Journal of Transitional Justice 5 (1): 11–30. Vandeginste, Stef. 1999. Justice, Reconciliation and Reparation After Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity: The Proposed Establishment of Popular Gacaca Tribunals in Rwanda. Paper presented at the All-Africa Conference on African Principles of Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, November 12.Google Scholar
Vandeginste, Stef. 2000. “Les juridictions gacaca et la poursuite des suspects auteurs du génocide et des crimes contre l’humanité au Rwanda.” In L’Afrique des Grands Lacs, Annuaire 1999–2000, edited by Reyntjens, F. and Marysse, S., 75–94. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Van der Merwe, Hugo, Baxter, Victoria, and Chapman, Audrey R., eds. 2009. Assessing the Impact of Transitional Justice. Challenges for Empirical Research. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar