Fusing policy and research: “A gender-sensitive lens isn’t only about women – it’s about understanding the full picture”

Nigar Goksel is a conflict analyst and peacebuilder from Türkiye who has spent over two decades working at the intersection of policy, research and diplomacy across the region. Since joining the global non-profit Crisis Group in 2015, she’s been focused on bridging research with policymaking to prevent and mitigate conflict.

1. How has your experience shaped your understanding of women’s roles in peacebuilding?

When I started working in Turkish NGOs in the early 2000s, “gender” wasn’t a familiar analytical lens. Women were very visible in academia, humanitarian work and NGOs, but they were much less present in strategic or political decision-making roles. The collective naming of that imbalance came years later, which made it more tangible and easier to tackle.

My understanding of women’s roles grew mostly from what I witnessed in the field and from my own experience as a woman navigating this work. But a few research projects really sharpened my awareness of gender dynamics. One was an early European Stability Initiative research in 2006–2007 that I co-led with a strong woman researcher who was senior to me. We compared women’s empowerment across Türkiye – eventually focusing on Kadıköy and Van. It showed me how having progressive laws matters, but their implementation depends on many things: resources, accountability of local officials, supporting NGOs’ accessibility, and social support structures.

Another experience that stayed with me was fieldwork along the Syrian border in 2018–2019 with Crisis Group. Our research wasn’t specifically on gender, but the gendered impacts of conflict were impossible to miss. Refugee women from rural eastern Syria faced many more layers of vulnerability – language barriers, illiteracy, loss of family protection, too many dependents, and predatory exploitation, particularly if they had lost their husbands in the war.

2. What have you observed about how women contribute to peacebuilding?

I’ve often seen women reveal layers of conflict that remain hidden to male researchers. Some shared stories with me that they might not have otherwise – which shaped how I understood conflict, and what I did about it. Once, after I relayed what I’d seen of refugee women’s exploitation by predatory men to a philanthropist in Istanbul, she went on to establish a mental health centre for women and children in Şanlıurfa. Small, quiet acts like that don’t appear in official reports, but they’re very much part of peacebuilding.

Women in NGOs and women-led NGOs not necessarily focused on “gender issues,” have been remarkably effective in shaping realities on the ground. In Türkiye, they’ve helped Syrians navigate bureaucracy, access legal rights and ease tensions with host communities. I’ve seen women working for NGOs in the south-east take personal responsibility for individual cases, working after hours, adapting their tone like chameleons when dealing with families or officials of different backgrounds, all to get a problem solved or to sensitize the system to similar cases.

But I think women tend to give far more to peacebuilding than they receive in status, recognition or pay. Sometimes it’s because they hesitate to ask; other times it’s because when they do, they’re brushed off more easily than men. Their contributions are often framed as charity – and sometimes women themselves internalize that, approaching their work as sacrifice.

3. How do gendered experiences shape the contributions of conflict women researchers?

In research, I’ve often felt that women analysts tend to widen the analytical frame – connecting geopolitical, social and emotional layers in ways that can help detect risks earlier or interpret conflicts more holistically. Geopolitical dynamics interact with local grievances in complex and sometimes unpredictable ways. So, it really helps to think broadly – linking security, social norms, local economies, state interests and emotional landscapes. I noticed this while listening to families of ISIS militants, or in rooms heavy with layered victimhood in Azerbaijan and Armenia, where nearly everyone carries ancestral trauma. Of course, men can do this equally well and some do have a gender-sensitive eye and are probably capable of developing it. But for now, it seems to come more naturally to women with field experience to notice early warning signs that later become security risks.

Particularly since I joined Crisis Group in 2015, I’ve been most focused on bridging research with policymaking. This requires translating the complexity of lived realities into concrete, balanced recommendations. It forces constant trade-offs: refugees have valid perspectives but so do host communities; ideals must fit within budgets, vote counts and geopolitical constraints. The quality of analysis is best when it is both grounded in human dynamics and power equations.

4. How can a gender-sensitive lens improve conflict prevention and policy relevance?

Moving between fieldwork and official meetings, I was struck by how few women were in those strategic discussions. For example, when rebuilding demolished districts in the south-east, the focus was on tank-width roads and strategic positioning, with almost no mention of how resettlement plans affected women’s safety, mobility or livelihoods. From what I’ve seen, women researchers often witness the real consequences of policies on the ground, yet their absence from or limited presence in high-level planning rooms means those human impacts are too often overlooked.

I think a gender-sensitive approach – applied by women or men – helps reveal the different pressures each face during conflict, and that insight directly strengthens conflict prevention. Women face distinct vulnerabilities, but young men face others: the expectation to provide, protect, or prove their masculinity can make them more susceptible to recruitment by armed or criminal networks. So, a gender-sensitive lens isn’t only about women – it’s about understanding the full picture.

That said, women are not uniformly oriented towards peace, and any gender lens needs to reflect that complexity rather than idealizing women.

5. Looking back, what moments or results in your work feel most meaningful or lasting?

I’d say my impact has come through many small differences rather than single, headline moments – explaining one side’s rationale or emotional baggage to the other; keeping dialogues alive where diplomatic relations were broken; humanizing polarized debates – whether in living rooms or presidential offices, which I see over time have played some small role in laying the ground for future openings.

A more visible moment came last year, when I spoke alongside the foreign ministers of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia at the Antalya Diplomacy Forum. After over two decades of working these issues behind the scenes, standing in that space felt both exhilarating and symbolic. It reminded me that claiming space can also be very rewarding.