2. Theme 2 Question 2:
What kinds of partnerships, networks and
coalitions might be most useful in the
future?

3. Three Practical Questions
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?
How to develop cooperative processes to address those gaps or
provide complementary insights and strengths?

4. Our Problem Analysis:
o Torture is a persistent feature of security and law
enforcement agencies in the global south*
o Torture 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.

5. How human rights organisations
address torture?
Approach
Four major pillars:
Institutional Constraints
Minimal research on what
causes and sustains torture
1. Legal Reform (criminalisation)
3. Naming and Shaming
Minimal empirical or
conceptual analysis of how
torture fits in with broader
systems and dynamics
4. Monitoring (open or
confidential)
Minimal robust evaluation of
effectiveness of intervention
2. Training (HR/IHL)

6. How scholars address torture and
systemic institutional violence?
Approach
Interdisciplinary perspectives on
institutional violence:
Sociology- situational factors
Criminology - police cultures &
organisational structures
Psychology mechanics of
dehumanisation, compliance and
obedience.
Institutional Constraints
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

7. Human Rights Organisations’ Approach
A strengths & weaknesses analysis:
Strengths
 Strong on action
 Strong links to
local
organisations
 Interventions
take place in the
actual place that
problematic
practices occur
Weaknesses
 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

8. Scholars’ Approach
A strengths & weaknesses analysis:
Strengths
 Strong on
conceptual analysis
 Can conduct
rich, detailed and
robust research
 Can draw on a
number of
disciplines and
experts
Weaknesses
 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

9. Our Project: Diagnostic Starting Point
Mindful of
institutional
constraints
in each field
Make the
most of the
strengths in
each field
Design new methodologies
that both counter
constraints and provide
opportunities to build on
strengths of each field

10. Lessons from a cognate field:
Public Health
Context-sensitive
rather than
generic
Operate at
multiple levels
at the same time
Most effective
interventions
Based on
empirical studies
& target
community is
site of
intervention
Based on a robust
theory of change
Address structural factors and root causes that
underpin the problem, not just the manifest problem

11. Our Project: Multi-Dimensional
Causality Models

12. Our Project: Multi-Dimensional Causality
Models

13. 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