The Proxi-Temporal Peacebuilding Framework

Developed by Dr. Mehri Hilton

The Proxi-Temporal Peacebuilding Framework is an ontological, epistemological, and methodological framework for researching, teaching, and practicing peacebuilding during active conflict. It explains how peace can be understood, generated, and sustained through proximity to conflict and within the temporal realities of ongoing violence, enabling universities, communities, and practitioners to co-produce contextually grounded knowledge while conflict continues rather than postponing peacebuilding until violence has ended.

Set out in full in From Post-Conflict to Proxi-Temporal Peacebuilding: Rethinking Universities and Ways of Knowing Peace During Active War by Dr. Mehri Hilton.

Where does the name “Proxi-Temporal” come from?

The name Proxi-Temporal combines two interdependent concepts that form the foundation of the framework: proximity and temporality.

Proximity refers to far more than physical closeness to conflict. It describes a relational, ethical, and epistemic condition in which researchers, educators, practitioners, and conflict-affected communities engage with one another through shared realities, reciprocal learning, and mutual accountability. Rather than treating local people simply as sources of information, the framework understands them as partners in the production of knowledge whose lived experience is indispensable to understanding how peace is practiced during conflict.

Temporality refers to the timing of peacebuilding in relation to the conflict itself. Drawing upon the United Nations Sustaining Peace agenda, which recognizes peacebuilding as occurring before, during, and after conflict, the Proxi-Temporal Framework argues that the temporal condition of during has received comparatively little methodological attention. Time is therefore understood not simply as chronology but as an epistemological condition that shapes what peace can become and what researchers are able to know about it while violence remains active.

Together, proximity and temporality explain that peace knowledge is shaped both by where it is produced and when it is produced. The framework therefore places conflict-embedded institutions and communities at the center of peacebuilding research.

What problem does the framework address?

The Proxi-Temporal Peacebuilding Framework responds to a significant gap between international peacebuilding policy and peacebuilding research. Over the past decade, the United Nations has fundamentally redefined peacebuilding through the Sustaining Peace agenda, recognizing that peacebuilding is a continuous responsibility extending “before, during, and after” conflict. This represents an important departure from earlier approaches that largely treated peacebuilding as a post-conflict activity. However, while international policy has evolved, research methodologies have not kept pace. There remains remarkably little systematic guidance on how peace should be researched while organized violence is still unfolding.

Much existing peacebuilding scholarship continues to concentrate either on preventing conflict before violence begins or on rebuilding societies once violence has subsided. Participatory research, conflict transformation, peace education, and community-based methodologies have all made significant contributions to collaborative knowledge production, yet they have predominantly been applied within relatively stable or post-conflict environments. Even where research is conducted in conflict-affected settings, methodological discussions rarely examine how the continuing presence of violence fundamentally shapes knowledge production itself.

This temporal gap has practical consequences. Waiting until conflict has ended risks overlooking the everyday practices through which individuals, families, schools, universities, and communities sustain relationships, preserve institutions, and negotiate peaceful coexistence while violence continues. These lived experiences often disappear from research once conflict is retrospectively reconstructed through post-conflict narratives. As a result, policymakers and practitioners possess relatively limited evidence concerning the forms of peace that emerge during war itself.

The Proxi-Temporal Framework addresses this problem by providing a methodology specifically designed for researching peace during active conflict. Rather than viewing ongoing violence as merely an obstacle to research, it recognizes it as the temporal context within which peace must be understood. Through participatory, trauma-informed, and ethically grounded approaches, the framework seeks to operationalize the United Nations’ vision of sustaining peace by enabling researchers, educators, and local communities to investigate how peace is continuously created, maintained, and transmitted while conflict remains active.

How does it differ from other approaches?

The Proxi-Temporal Peacebuilding Framework complements existing approaches to peacebuilding but differs from them in both its temporal focus and its understanding of knowledge production.

Post-conflict peacebuilding

Post-conflict peacebuilding primarily concentrates on rebuilding institutions, reconciliation, and recovery after organized violence has ceased. The Proxi-Temporal Framework instead investigates how peace is practiced, negotiated, and sustained while conflict is still ongoing, recognizing that many forms of peacebuilding begin long before formal post-conflict reconstruction.

Conflict prevention and early warning

Conflict prevention and early warning seek to identify and reduce the risk of future violence before conflict escalates. The Proxi-Temporal Framework shares this commitment to preventing violence but focuses specifically on communities already living through active conflict, asking how peace continues to exist despite ongoing violence rather than how violence might be avoided.

Conflict transformation

Conflict transformation examines the long-term transformation of relationships, institutions, and social structures that generate conflict. While Proxi-Temporal Peacebuilding recognizes these objectives, its primary concern is not transformation after conflict but the everyday practices through which relationships, learning, and institutional continuity are sustained during conflict.

Humanitarian response and protection

Humanitarian response and protection work are principally concerned with saving lives, meeting immediate needs, and protecting civilians. The Proxi-Temporal Framework does not replace humanitarian action. Instead, it complements it by examining how education, research, dialogue, and community relationships contribute to sustaining peace alongside humanitarian interventions.

Track II diplomacy

Track II diplomacy focuses on informal dialogue between influential actors outside official political negotiations. By contrast, the Proxi-Temporal Framework is concerned with the everyday production of peace knowledge within universities, schools, and communities, recognizing that peacebuilding is not confined to elite dialogue but is continuously enacted through ordinary social and educational practices.

Participatory Action Research

The framework also differs from Participatory Action Research (PAR). PAR provides valuable methods for collaborative inquiry and social change, but its principal concern is participation as a research methodology. The Proxi-Temporal Framework incorporates participatory principles while extending them by arguing that proximity and temporality fundamentally shape the production of knowledge itself. Participation is therefore understood not merely as a research technique but as an ethical and epistemological condition arising from shared engagement within active conflict.

Peace education

While peace education seeks to develop knowledge, skills, and values that promote peaceful societies, the Proxi-Temporal Framework conceptualizes educational institutions themselves as conflict-embedded sites of peacebuilding. Universities and schools are not only places where peace is taught; they are institutions through which peace is researched, practiced, and sustained while violence continues.

Unlike these neighboring approaches, the Proxi-Temporal Framework integrates ontology, epistemology, methodology, pedagogy, and ethics into a single framework specifically designed for researching and supporting peacebuilding during active conflict.

What are its components?

The Proxi-Temporal Peacebuilding Framework is organized around six interdependent dimensions, each addressing a distinct aspect of researching and practicing peacebuilding during active conflict. Together, these dimensions provide an integrated framework that combines theory, methodology, pedagogy, and ethical practice.

1. The Temporal Dimension

The Temporal Dimension positions the timing of research as a defining characteristic of knowledge production. Drawing upon the United Nations Sustaining Peace agenda, the framework recognizes peacebuilding as a continuous process occurring before, during, and after conflict. However, its primary focus is the comparatively neglected temporal condition of during, arguing that peace experienced within active conflict differs fundamentally from peace examined retrospectively after violence has ceased. Research conducted during conflict therefore requires distinct conceptual, methodological, and ethical approaches.

2. The Proximity Dimension

The Proximity Dimension reconceptualizes proximity as an ontological, epistemological, and ethical condition rather than simply geographical closeness. Knowledge is generated through sustained relationships, reciprocal engagement, and shared accountability between researchers, educators, practitioners, and conflict-affected communities. Proximity therefore requires researchers to move beyond detached observation toward collaborative knowledge production while maintaining appropriate professional and ethical boundaries.

3. The Participatory Dimension

The Participatory Dimension establishes conflict-affected communities as partners in knowledge creation rather than subjects of investigation. Universities, schools, civil society organizations, children, educators, and local practitioners contribute directly to defining research priorities, interpreting findings, and developing locally meaningful responses. Participation is therefore understood as reciprocal collaboration rather than consultation.

4. The Pedagogical Dimension

The Pedagogical Dimension recognizes education as an active process of peacebuilding rather than simply the transmission of knowledge about peace. Universities and schools are understood as conflict-embedded institutions that sustain dialogue, critical reflection, institutional continuity, and community resilience while conflict continues. The framework also provides the foundation for developing locally co-produced, trauma-informed peace education curricula that emerge from children’s and communities’ lived experiences rather than externally prescribed models.

5. The Ethical Dimension

The Ethical Dimension places safeguarding, trauma awareness, and the principle of Do No Harm at the center of research design. Ethical responsibility is understood as relational and continuous rather than procedural. Researchers remain accountable throughout the research process, adapting methods to changing conflict conditions while prioritizing the dignity, wellbeing, and agency of participants, particularly children and vulnerable communities.

6. The Institutional Dimension

The Institutional Dimension positions universities not simply as venues for research but as conflict-embedded epistemic communities that generate, preserve, and transmit peace knowledge during active conflict. Through teaching, research, international collaboration, and community engagement, higher education institutions become active participants in sustaining peace rather than passive observers of conflict.

These six dimensions operate together rather than sequentially. The framework therefore provides an integrated architecture for understanding how peace knowledge is produced, sustained, and applied within the lived realities of ongoing conflict.

What does using the framework involve?

Applying the Proxi-Temporal Peacebuilding Framework begins by reframing the central research question. Rather than asking how peace can be rebuilt after conflict, practitioners first ask how peace is already being experienced, negotiated, and sustained while violence continues. This shifts attention from post-conflict recovery toward the everyday practices through which individuals, institutions, and communities preserve relationships, learning, dignity, and hope under conditions of insecurity.

Researchers begin by identifying conflict-embedded institutions and communities that continue to function despite ongoing violence. Universities, schools, civil society organizations, and local community groups become partners in defining research priorities, selecting appropriate methods, and interpreting findings. Rather than extracting information from participants, the framework encourages collaborative knowledge production based upon reciprocal relationships and shared ownership of the research process.

Research design is then adapted to the realities of active conflict. Methods remain flexible and responsive to changing security conditions while prioritizing safeguarding, trauma awareness, and the principle of Do No Harm. Data collection may involve participatory workshops, collaborative curriculum development, reflective dialogue, creative and arts-based methods, educational observation, or other contextually appropriate approaches that minimize risk and respect participants’ wellbeing.

Analysis focuses not only on the outcomes of peacebuilding but also on the everyday practices through which peace is continuously enacted. Particular attention is given to how teaching, learning, institutional continuity, community relationships, and local initiatives contribute to sustaining peace while conflict persists.

Finally, the findings are translated into practical outputs that strengthen local capacity. These may include co-produced educational resources, locally developed peace curricula, institutional partnerships, practitioner guidance, or collaborative research programs. In this way, research becomes both an analytical process and a contribution to sustaining peace within the communities participating in it.

When and how was it developed?

The Proxi-Temporal Peacebuilding Framework was developed by Dr. Mehri Hilton. It emerged through the development of the International Institute for Peacebuilding in Active Conflict (IIPAC) and reflects the integration of several years of academic research, professional peacebuilding practice, and international collaboration. It was developed in response to an increasingly evident gap between international peacebuilding policy and the methodologies available for researching peace while organized violence remains active.

The framework draws upon a broad interdisciplinary body of scholarship, including participatory and transdisciplinary research, peace and conflict studies, critical pedagogy, feminist peace research, relational epistemology, and community-based participatory research. It has been particularly influenced by developments within the United Nations Sustaining Peace agenda, which recognizes peacebuilding as a continuous process extending before, during, and after conflict. While this policy shift significantly broadened the conceptual understanding of peacebuilding, it also highlighted the absence of a coherent methodological framework capable of operationalizing research during the temporal condition of active conflict.

The Proxi-Temporal Framework therefore represents an attempt to synthesize these theoretical developments into a practical research architecture. Rather than replacing existing peacebuilding theories, it integrates their principal insights within a coherent framework specifically designed for conflict-embedded research, education, and institutional collaboration. Its continuing development is closely connected to IIPAC’s partnerships with universities, educators, and civil society organizations working in conflict-affected settings, where the framework continues to evolve through dialogue, collaboration, and critical reflection.

Has the framework been applied, tested, or taught?

The Proxi-Temporal Peacebuilding Framework is currently in the early stages of practical implementation and continues to evolve through collaborative partnerships rather than through completed large-scale evaluation. It informs IIPAC’s developing program of research, education, and institutional collaboration with universities and community partners working within active conflict environments.

One important area of application is IIPAC’s partnership with Bohdan Khmelnytsky National University of Cherkasy in Ukraine, developed in collaboration with Rotary Club Cherkasy International. Through this partnership, the framework is informing joint discussions on research methodology, higher education, peacebuilding pedagogy, and collaborative academic programs. It also provides the conceptual basis for developing future educational initiatives that seek to strengthen universities as active contributors to sustaining peace during conflict.

The framework is also informing the design of proposed collaborative work with universities and educational institutions in Palestine, where particular emphasis is being placed on trauma-informed research, safeguarding, locally co-produced curricula, and participatory approaches to peace education. These initiatives aim to explore how universities can function as conflict-embedded sites of knowledge production while supporting children, educators, and communities living through prolonged violence.

At present, however, the framework has not yet undergone formal independent empirical evaluation, nor has it been tested through comparative longitudinal research. Establishing its methodological validity, practical effectiveness, and wider applicability constitutes one of the principal objectives of the proposed postdoctoral research program. IIPAC therefore presents the Proxi-Temporal Peacebuilding Framework as a developing research framework whose continued refinement will occur through collaborative implementation, scholarly evaluation, and international academic partnerships. This openness to testing and refinement is considered a strength of the framework, reflecting its commitment to continuous learning and evidence-informed development rather than fixed theoretical prescription.

What are its limitations?

The Proxi-Temporal Peacebuilding Framework is not intended to replace existing approaches to peacebuilding, conflict prevention, or humanitarian response. Rather, it addresses a specific gap concerning the study and practice of peacebuilding during active conflict. Consequently, its application is most appropriate where organized violence remains an ongoing condition and where educational institutions, civil society organizations, or local communities continue to function despite insecurity.

The framework should not be regarded as a universal model applicable to every conflict or every stage of peacebuilding. Different conflicts vary considerably in their political, cultural, historical, and security contexts, and the framework must therefore be adapted collaboratively rather than applied as a standardized methodology. Equally, it does not claim that participatory approaches are always possible. In situations characterized by extreme violence, widespread displacement, the collapse of educational institutions, or immediate threats to life, humanitarian protection and basic security must necessarily take precedence over participatory research.

Because the framework places significant emphasis on collaboration with conflict-affected communities, it also requires sustained ethical commitment, institutional trust, and locally established partnerships. Without these conditions, attempts to implement participatory approaches risk becoming superficial, extractive, or potentially harmful. Similarly, the framework does not assume that participation automatically redistributes power or produces better knowledge. Existing inequalities between researchers, institutions, and participants remain important challenges requiring continuous reflexivity and ethical accountability.

Finally, the framework remains under active development. While its conceptual foundations draw upon established scholarship across peace research, participatory methodology, and education, further empirical testing is required to evaluate its effectiveness across different conflict settings, educational systems, and cultural contexts. Future research will therefore examine both the strengths and limitations of the framework through comparative international partnerships and long-term collaborative evaluation.

What are the most common misunderstandings?

That it is another form of Participatory Action Research. While the framework incorporates participatory principles, its primary contribution is not a new participation technique but a new way of understanding how proximity and temporality shape the production of peace knowledge during active conflict.

That it is intended for post-conflict reconstruction. In fact, it was developed precisely because peacebuilding does not begin when violence ends. The framework investigates how peace is practiced, negotiated, and sustained while conflict remains active, complementing rather than replacing post-conflict peacebuilding.

That proximity means geographical closeness. Within the framework, proximity is understood more broadly as a relational, ethical, and epistemic condition involving reciprocal engagement, shared accountability, and collaborative knowledge production between researchers and conflict-affected communities.

That it advocates participation for its own sake. This is not the case. Participation is always guided by safeguarding, trauma awareness, and the principle of Do No Harm. Where participation would increase risk or distress, the framework requires methods to be modified, postponed, or discontinued. Ethical responsibility always takes precedence over methodological ambition.