As developed throughout the dissertation's chapters, I combined a number of different and interconnected agendas with the overall goal being to strengthen and revitalize the field of conflict resolution and peacebuilding research in a number of ways. First, I critiqued the past and current peacebuilding literature in order to present its theoretical, methodological and substantive gaps and inadequacies. Second, I argued for a recognition of the interconnectedness of methodology, reflexivity and knowledge/power in general, and more specifically within the peacebuilding literature. Third, my theoretical and methodological framework constituted a distinctive exemplar for conflict resolution and peacebuilding that begins to ground our research questions, methodologies and discourses as situated knowledges within relations of power. Fourth, I argued academic peacebuilding discourses and practices are not neutral but inherently involved in larger social relations. Fifth, I presented the critical narratives from the locality of Indigenous and non-Indigenous grassroots activists in order to shift the spotlight of peacebuilding discourses and practices onto the transformative possibilities of grassroots community-based peace building. I continued with a reformulated theorization of grassroots community peacebuilding as alternative geographies of knowledge, place-based practices and counter-narratives, important in themselves, and as part of a glocality of bottom-up transformative change. Finally, I conclude with a call for a renewing of the field of Conflict resolution and Peacebuilding based on social justice and community-based praxis.

As developed throughout the dissertation¿s chapters, I combined a number of different and interconnected agendas with the overall goal being to strengthen and revitalize the field of conflict resolution and peacebuilding research in a number of ways. First, I critiqued the past and current peacebuilding literature in order to present its theoretical, methodological and substantive gaps and inadequacies. Second, I argued for a recognition of the interconnectedness of methodology, reflexivity and knowledge/power in general, and more specifically within the peacebuilding literature. Third, my theoretical and methodological framework constituted a distinctive exemplar for conflict resolution and peacebuilding that begins to ground our research questions, methodologies and discourses as situated knowledges within relations of power. Fourth, I argued academic peacebuilding discourses and practices are not neutral but inherently involved in larger social relations. Fifth, I presented the critical narratives from the locality of Indigenous and non-Indigenous grassroots activists in order to shift the spotlight of peacebuilding discourses and practices onto the transformative possibilities of grassroots community-based peace building. I continued with a reformulated theorization of grassroots community peacebuilding as alternative geographies of knowledge, place-based practices and counter-narratives, important in themselves, and as part of a glocality of bottom-up transformative change. Finally, I conclude with a call for a renewing of the field of Conflict resolution and Peacebuilding based on social justice and community-based praxis.