Transitional Justice Perception Surveys


Studies that aim to understand experiences, perceptions, and needs for justice and accountability among survivors of conflicts and other forms of violence complement macro analysis of transitional justice mechanisms by providing detailed, ground-level insights.

When available, TJET country pages feature data from mixed-method studies implemented by two of the project investigators, Phuong Pham and Patrick Vinck. Together, they have conducted extensive research and surveys across various global conflict zones, focusing on understanding the experiences of survivors and their perception of transitional justice.

Currently, the following surveys are featured:

For each study, the PIs worked with local partners and experts to understand the cultural, social, and emotional contexts of survivors and create context-specific research instruments (questionnaires and discussion guides). Studies typically involves a sequential mixed-methods approach, integrating both qualitative (interviews, focus groups) and quantitative (survey) elements.

The qualitative phase involves consultations with local experts, organizations, and individuals in conflict zones. This stage is crucial for understanding the context of the populations and co-creating survey instruments. The surveys are tailored to capture the experiences, needs, and expectations of survivors, particularly around transitional justice. These surveys are administered to a representative sample of the population in the conflict zones, typically selected using multi-stage cluster sampling to select respondents. This mixed-methods approach allows to capture both the depth and breadth of the experiences of individuals in conflict zones, leading to more nuanced and context-specific insights. For a more detailed discussion of our mixed-methods approach, see this article.

Together, this research shows that there is no consistent trends about what victims of conflict want or what justice means to them. Survivors’ attitudes towards memorials, forgiveness, punishment, or reparations can vary greatly. A common thread, however, is the survivors’ desire for acknowledgment and understanding “the truth” about their experiences, as well as the need for security and stability in the future through guarantees of non-repetition. The studies show that the effectiveness of various mechanisms can vary depending on the context, and that survivors’ needs and expectations are not sufficiently taken into consideration in these processes, leading to mechanisms that may be perceived as inauthentic or extractive.