Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T13:29:03.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Researching norms, narratives, and transitional justice: focus group methodology in post-conflict Croatia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Ivor Sokolić
Ivor Sokolić*
Affiliation:
UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES), London, UK
*
Email: ivor.sokolic.11@ucl.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article is based on the assumption that norms can help better understand one of the expressivist aims of transitional justice, that of building a new narrative about the past. The main argument is that focus groups, as an interactive method of inquiry, are well suited to investigating how this “judicial” narrative interacts with the official and dominant war narrative in Croatia. Focus groups are more adept at this than other methodological approaches since they can effectively reflect independence of opinion; they lead to more truthful answers through spontaneity; they effectively probe taken-for-granted concepts; and they can more easily overcome distrust in post-conflict societies, especially with ex-combatants. The approach faces new challenges in such a situation since recruitment problems, insider/outsider status, and posttraumatic stress disorder, among other ethical concerns, present problems that often arise due to the group process. The powerful and unpredictable effect of the group dynamic can, therefore, provide a deep exploration of social norms, but it can also cause significant upset among participants. In this instance the methodology explores how widely accepted the war narrative is, how it is constructed, and how important the public believes it is not to question it.

Keywords

transitional justiceCroatiawar narrativefocus groupsnorms
Type
Articles
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 44 , Issue 6 , November 2016 , pp. 932 - 949
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 Association for the Study of Nationalities 

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

Albrecht, Terrance L., Johnson, Gerianne M. and Walther, Joseph B. 1993. “Understanding Communication Processes in Focus Groups.” In Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art, edited by David L. Morgan, 51–64. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Banjeglav, Tamara. 2012. “Conflicting Memories, Competing Narratives and Contested Histories in Croatia.” Politička Misao 42 (5): 7–31.Google Scholar
Belgrade Centre for Human Rights. 2011. Informisanost i stavovi građana Hrvatske prema Haškom tribunalu i sudenjima za ratne zločine pred sudovima u Hrvatskoj [Knowledge and Attitudes of the Citizens of Croatia Towards The Hague Tribunal and War Crimes Trials in Croatian Courts]. http://www.bgcentar.org.rs/bgcentar/eng-lat/citizens-perceptions-of-human-rights-law-and-practice/stavovi-prema-ratnim-zlocinima-haskom-tribunalu-domacem-pravosudu-za-ratne-zlocine/.Google Scholar
Bertrand, Jane T., Brown, Judith E. and Ward, Victoria M. 1992. “Techniques for Analyzing Focus Group Data.” Evaluation Review 16 (2): 198–209.Google Scholar
Blanuša, Nebojša. 2005. “Historical Consciousness of Young People in Europe at the Turn of the Millennium.” Politička Misao 42 (5): 31–54.Google Scholar
Clark, Janine N., 2012. “The ICTY and Reconciliation in Croatia: A Case Study of Vukovar.” Journal of International Criminal Justice 10: 397–422.Google Scholar
Cruvellier, Thierry and Valinas, Marta. 2006. Croatia: Selected Developments in Transitional Justice. New York: International Centre for Transitional Justice.Google Scholar
Das, Veena. 2001. Remaking a World: Violence, Social Suffering, and Recovery. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Drumbl, Mark A., 2007. Atrocity, Punishment and International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eliade, Mircea. 1963. Myth and Reality. Translated by William R. Trask. London: Allen & Un win.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.” International Organization 52 (4): 887–917.Google Scholar
Fleisher, Mark S., 1995. Beggars and Thieves: Lives of Urban Street Criminal. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Fontana, Andrea and Frey, James H. 1994. “Interviewing: The Art of Science.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 361–376. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Gordy, Eric. 2014. Guilt, Responsibility, and Denial: The Past at Stake in Post-Milošević Serbia. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Hollander, Jocelyn A., 2004. “The Social Contexts of Focus Groups.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 33 (5): 602–637.Google Scholar
Homan, Roger. 2004. “The Principle of Assumed Consent: The Ethics of Gatekeeping.” In The Ethics of Educational Research, edited by Mike McNamee and David Bridges, 23–40. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto. 1991. Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto and Kinder, Donald R. 1987. News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, Alex. 2011. “The Political Geographies of Transitional Justice.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 36 (3): 344–359.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J., 1996. The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Kempny, Marta. 2012. “Rethinking Native Anthropology: Migration and Auto-ethnography in the Post-accession Europe.” International Review of Social Research 2 (2): 39–52.Google Scholar
Koren, Snježana. 2001. “Korisna prošlost? Ratovi devetesetih u deklaracijama Hrvatskog sabora” [Useful Past? The Wars of the Nineties in the Declarations of the Croatian Parliament]. In Kultura sjećanja: 1991. povijesni lomovi i svladanje prošlosti [Culture of Memory: 1991. Historical Breaks and Overcoming the Past], edited by Tihomir Cipek, 123–156. Zagreb: Disput.Google Scholar
Lamont, Christopher K., 2010. International Criminal Justice and the Politics of Compliance. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Lewis, Jane. 2003. “Design Issues.” In Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers, edited by Jane Ritchie and Jane Lewis, 47–76. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Morgan, David L., 1996. “Focus Groups.” Annual Review of Sociology 22 (1): 129–152.Google Scholar
Novine, Narodne. 2000. Deklaracija o domovinskom ratu [Declaration on the Homeland War]. www.nn.hr, no. 102.Google Scholar
Novine, Narodne. 2006. Deklaracija o oluji [Declaration on Operation Storm], www.nn.hr, no. 76.Google Scholar
Nettelfield, Lara J., 2010. Courting Democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina: The Hague Tribunal's Impact in a Postwar State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Obradović-Wochnik, Jelena. 2013. Ethnic Conflict and War Crimes in the Balkans: The Narratives of Denial in Post-conflict Serbia. London: I.B. Tauris.Google Scholar
Osiel, Mark. 1998. Mass Atrocity, Collective Memory and the Law. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
Pavlaković, Vjeran. 2007. “Eye of the Storm: The ICTY, Commemorations and Contested Histories of Croatia's Homeland War.” Wilson Center. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/347-eye-the-storm-the-icty-commemorations-and-contested-histories-croatias-homeland-war.Google Scholar
Pavlaković, Vjeran. 2014. “Fulfilling the Thousand-Year-Old Dream: Strategies of Symbolic Nation-Building in Croatia.” In Strategies of Symbolic Nation-Building in South Eastern Europe, edited by Pål Kolst⊘, 19–50. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Ragin, Charles C., 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Rangelov, Iavor. 2014. Nationalism and the Rule of Law: Lessons from the Balkans and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Risse, Thomas, Steve C. Ropp and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1999. The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Sean P., 2012. “Research in Challenging Environments: The Case of Russia's “Managed Democracy”.” Qualitative Research 13 (3): 337–351.Google Scholar
Söderström, Johanna. 2010. “Ex-combatants at the Polls: Exploring Focus Groups and Electoral Meaning.” Anthropology Matters Journal 12 (1): 1–16.Google Scholar
Stewart, David W., Shamdasani, Prem N. and Rook, Dennis W. 2007. Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Subotić, Jelena. 2009. Hijacked Justice: Dealing with the Past in the Balkans. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Teitel, Ruti G., 2005. “The Law and Politics of Contemporary Transitional Justice.” Cornell International Law Journal 38 (3): 837–862.Google Scholar
Traianou, Anna and Hammersley, Martyn. 2012. Ethics in Qualitative Research: Controversies and Contexts. London: Sage.Google Scholar
University of Oslo. 2011. “Strategies of Symbolic Nation-Building in West Balkan States: Intents and Results – Croatia.” http://www.hf.uio.no/ilos/english/research/projects/nation-w-balkan/.Google Scholar
Utas, Mats and Christensen, Maya. 2008. “Mercenaries of Democracy: The ‘Politricks’ of Remobilized Combatants in the 2007 General Elections, Sierra Leone.” African Affairs 107 (429): 515–539.Google Scholar
Van Ginkel, Rob. 1998. “The Repatriation of Anthropology: Some Observations on Endo-ethnography.” Anthropology & Medicine 5 (3): 251–267.Google Scholar
Wolcott, Harry F., 2005. The Art of Fieldwork. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar